Thursday, 25 August 1983 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President, and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that whereas the Government of Australia has signed the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which in Article 23 (1) states that 'The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to the protection by society and the State'. And Whereas the terms of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women would violate the above Article 23 (1). We humbly pray the Government to refrain from ratifying the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women; Believing that its implementation would result in: 1. Undue cost to the Nation at this time. 2. ''The elimination of any stereotyped concept of roles of men and women at all levels'' as described in Part 3 Article 10 (c), being a disruption of traditional parental roles, is likely to result in emotional disturbances of childhood. 3. The strong encouragements to mothers to join the workforce, with the provision of networks of creches and child care centres as outlined in article 11 of the convention is likely to result in maternal deprivation and psychological disturbances among children with an increase in childhood psychiatric illnesses. 4. The sexual role changing as recommended in Part 3 Article 10 (c) is likely to contribute to further marriage insecurity and breakdown. And we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our Nation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Bjelke-Petersen (from 193 citizens), Sir John Carrick (from 50 citizens), Lewis (from 16 citizens), Richardson (from 159 citizens), Scott (from 24 citizens), Sibraa (from 13 citizens) and Walters (from 63 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 committee the power to judge Australia's laws, Humbly Petition that your Honourable House will not ratify the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jessop (from 192 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. The concerns which people around the World have for the increasing stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction; 2. The global concern that any nuclear exchange will inflict on humanity unimaginable death and suffering; 3. The vulnerability that Australians will face in any nuclear conflict between the major powers; 4. The public concern that Government should explore all avenues to ensure that the nuclear threat is eliminated. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Parliament establish a Senate Select Committee on Nuclear Disarmament and Peace to investigate the creation of a Ministry of Peace and Nuclear Disarmament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Richardson (from 127 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: 1. That an airport in the north-western region (commonly called Scheyville) imposes disastrous economic, environmental and social costs on our community. 2. An airport would destroy 2,000 households and impose upheaval, noise and pollution on one million people presently unaffected. 3. The cost of an airport in the north-western region is greater than the alternatives, whilst fog and close proximity to RAAF Base Richmond would make operations impractical. 4. It would destroy the historic village of Pitt Town, environmentally important wetlands, and their unique adherent wildlife. 5. Your petitioners reject these proposals and call for endorsement of the MANS Committee findings. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Peter Baume (from 29 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth objection to the Metric system and request the Government to restore the Imperial system. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chipp (from 23 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-servicewoman 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 Senator Boswell (from four 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 24 citizens). To the Honourable, the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the post-school education sector has been neglected in recent years . Therefore we call on the members of the Senate to endorse: (1) Increases in TEAS to at least the level of the poverty line. All people should be guaranteed a living wage. (2) Increased funding for campus based childcare. (3) The abolition of the overseas student visa charge which is grossly discriminatory. (4) Increased funding for student housing. (5) Increased funding for libraries to ensure facilities are adequate. (6) The establishment or supplementation of campus based student loan funds which are interest free and short-term. (7) Increasing the level and number of postgraduate awards. (8) Extending services to part-time, mature age and external students to open access to education. (9) Increasing student representation at all levels. (10) Innovation in curriculum to ensure curriculum is relevant and critical. (11) Increasing education funding to improve existing facilities. (12) Funding quality student health services which help contribute to the successful completion of courses. (13) Expanding enrolments to open access to education. (14) Compensating institutions for the costs of amalgamation. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: The Senate will support the above claims. by Senator Ryan (from 738 citizens). The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms the principle of the inadmissibility of discrimination and proclaims that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights and that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth therein, without distinction of any kind including distinction based on sex. However extensive discrimination against women continues to exist. It is an obstacle to the participation of women on equal terms with men, in the political , social, economic and cultural life of this country. It hampers the growth of the prosperity of society and the family and makes more difficult the full development of the potentialities of women in the service of this country and of humanity. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government will act to ratify the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Ryan (from 36 citizens). Petitions received. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting , I shall move: (1) That the following matter be referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare-Existing retirement income systems with particular reference to any changes which may be necessary to ensure equitable and comprehensive income security for Australians of retirement age; (2) That the Committee report to the Senate on or before the first sitting day in August 1984. Notice of Motion Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia) — I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to prohibit advertisements relating to smoking and tobacco products in the Australian Capital Territory and for related purposes. Notice of Motion Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on two sitting days after today , I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to provide for approval by the Senate and the House of Representatives of treaties. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —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. Review of the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme-A Report to the Minister for Finance by E. S. Knight and Co.-together with a statement relating to the report made by the Minister for Finance in the House of Representatives on 23 August 1983. 2. Technological Change and Employment-Report by the Australian Science and Technology Council-pursuant to section 6 (2) of the Australian Science and Technology Council Act 1978. 3. Incentives for Innovations to Australian Industry-Report by the Australian Science and Technology Council-pursuant to section 6 (2) of the Australian Science and Technology Council Act 1978. 4. Inquiry into Disclosure of Electoral Expenditure-Report-April 1981. 5. Australian Postal Commission-Service and Business Outlook 1983-84-Report. 6. Progress with the Export Inspection Scheme-Department of Primary Industry- Statement made to the House of Representatives by the Minister for Primary Industry on 24 August 1983. 7. Health Insurance Commission-Interim Annual Report 1982-83-together with a statement relating to the report made by the Minister for Health in the House of Representatives on 24 August 1983. 8. Incentives for the Film Industry-Statement made by the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment made in the House of Representatives on 24 August 1983. 9. Departmental Explanatory Notes on Estimates of Proposed Expenditure 1983-84 as follows: Estimates of Proposed Expenditure, for year 1983-84, and, where indicated, Departmental Expenditure under the Advance to the Minister for Finance 1982-83. Explanatory Notes of departments and authorities-- Aboriginal Affairs* Administrative Services* Attorney General's Australian Development Assistance Bureau Australian Institute of Marine Science Australian Science and Technology Council Aviation Commonwealth Ombudsman CSIRO Communications Defence Defence Support* Education and Youth Affairs Employment and Industrial Relations Finance* Foreign Affairs* Health Housing and Construction (2 volumes)* + Immigration and Ethnic Affairs Industry and Commerce* Joint House National Capital Development Commission Office of National Assessments Parliamentary Library Primary Industry (2 volumes)* Prime Minister and Cabinet Public Service Board Resources and Energy Science and Technology Senate Social Security Special Minister of State Sport, Recreation and Tourism Territories and Local Government Trade Transport Treasury* Veterans' Affairs (*Together with Departmental Expenditure under the Advance to the Minister for Finance 1982-83. + Proposed expenditure on Capital Works Program contained in separate volume.) Report Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(10.05) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. This report touches the whole question of superannuation payable to Commonwealth Government employees. It is a very interesting document. It draws our attention to the many salient features of those schemes and compares them with similar benefits available to those in the private sector and, indeed, to other parts of the public sector. I draw the particular attention of the Senate to the report. I think it is relevant to note that the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations is, as I understand it, currently undertaking a review in the statutory authority area as well on this very question. The review was commenced last year under the chairmanship of Senator Peter Rae. One or two facts are salient and can be drawn from this report. For instance, if we were to compare, on an average, the new entrant contribution rate payable by the employer on behalf of employees under such schemes as this, the percentage of salaries would approximate the following: In relation to private schemes providing lump sums the rate is about 9 per cent; in relation to those providing pension benefits as distinct from lump sums, the contribution by employers is of the order of 12.5 per cent; and in relation to schemes in the public sector-Commonwealth and State Government employment-the employer contribution is in excess of 20 per cent of salary. In the case of the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme it is 21.5 per cent. I think those figures draw our attention to some very important facts, Mr President. Clearly, payments to people receiving lump sums require a far lower contribution by employers than do pension payments. In fact, the point is made that that is only 9 per cent of salary compared with pension payments of 12 1/2 per cent. But overriding that, in the area of Commonwealth and State public servants the contribution is of the order of 20 per cent. That demonstrates quite clearly the point that we have been making about the relative costs of benefits under a lump sum scheme as distinct from those under a pension scheme over a given period. Quite apart from that, this report comes at a most useful time in the whole discussion of the problems of providing pension and retirement income benefits for Australians when we consider the Government's actions in this area in the last three months. We recall the mini-Budget in -- Senator Chaney —It is reprehensible. Senator MESSNER —It is reprehensible, as Senator Chaney says. In the mini-Budget in May we noted that the Government decided to apply a tax at the outrageous rates on lump sums payable upon retirement. Senator Crowley —Tut, tut! Senator MESSNER —Senator Crowley tut tuts as usual about a matter which is of great concern to Australians. She is not interested in matters affecting South Australia, as evidenced by her actions in this place last night. Nor is she concerned about the retirement problems of Australian pensioners. But the point I make, Mr President, is that, in addition to the introduction of taxation on lump sum superannuation payments and an incomes test for the over 70s, the Government's latest announcement about the introduction of an assets test has left everybody in the community floundering with confusion because it has been inadequately represented and explained by the Minister for Social Security ( Senator Grimes). This has been evidenced by the enormous number of representations made to our offices in the last 24 hours. Of course, the newspapers and radio stations carry reports along the same lines. I do not know how many members of the Opposition have tuned in to their home States radio stations in the last 24 hours but surely they must have heard the same thing. I make the point that this confusion is continuing and, in the hands of this Government, has become absolutely out of control. That is why I, on behalf of the Opposition, put down a notice of motion on the subject today. It draws attention to this confusion and seeks action. Since we know that the Government is hopeless in trying to address itself to these problems it is hoped that a committee of the Senate will at least be able to take up the cudgels on behalf of the Australian pensioners, investigate these fundamental questions affecting retirement incomes and make recommendations in due course. Debate (on motion by Senator Chaney) adjourned. Report Senator COLEMAN(Western Australia)(10.11) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I want to make a couple of points on what is obviously a much needed report. I refer honourable senators to the definition of technological change on page xii of the report, which states: Technological change is change which leads to new products (including services) or to new processes for producing existing products; technological change involves an impact on the nature of work (mediated through techniques of organisation and management), on the economy, and on society. I would suggest that many unions have found to their members' detriment that effects on work by technological change are not always mediated by organisation or management techniques. Often rationalisation involving disemployment and de- skilling of workers has occurred along with, but not directly caused by, technological change. Technological change is sometimes used in fact as a smoke- screen to avert the wrath of unions. It is said: 'It is technical progress', et cetera. Therefore I think this definition is in error and I reserve the right to point out on behalf of the vast majority of Australian workers who are not managers that their jobs are not necessarily protected by well meaning management who will keep them on at any cost. Often the reverse is the case. The second point I raise relates to the strong reference to retraining, education and, indirectly, income maintenance while workers are between jobs. It seems to me that that is another example of the public subsidising private enterprise and then having to apologise. Unfortunately, many people believe that government, paid for by the whole community, should never be allowed to act as an initiator of productive processes but act only as a safety net for private business when it needs it. Corporate interests just will not underwrite comprehensive retraining and they deride 'welfare' income maintenance programs. I believe it is time that these interests realise that if they want the insurance they have to be prepared to pay the premiums and to appreciate that centralised government planning has a primary role to play in modern industry. It works in advanced countries such as Japan and West Germany but for it to work in Australia the first thing we have to do is to remove that stigma of ' government spending', 'creeping socialism' or the like and we have to undertake comprehensive and long term programs orientated towards minimising social disruption because of technological change and other economic trends. I commend the report to the Senate but I make the very valid point that those issues that I have raised are extremely important as far as the vast majority of Australians are concerned who are not management but are in fact those further down on that socio-economic scale, the workers of this country. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(10.13) —I simply wish to draw the attention of honourable senators to one section in this excellent report headed 'Health and safety effects of new technology'. As has been said very often in this chamber, there is no way that I could possibly have grasped the contents of this book in the last day or so. Senator Bolkus —Senator Messner does not seem to care. Senator CROWLEY —I thank Senator Bolkus for his comment. We will remind him later. We simply must continue to pay increasing attention to the health and safety dimensions of new technology. The document makes very good comment about the impacts of health and safety on technology. More importantly, it refers to the impact of technology on health and safety factors. The points that Senator Coleman alluded to apply also very much when we are talking about health and safety factors. The designs of jobs to accommodate technology very often mean increasingly boring and repetitive jobs. This has been a contributing factor to the increased number of injuries due to repetition of the same human movement. In particular, the most known example is that of tenosynovitis. I mention this not only because it is the most widely known, but also because it is a disease more often seen among women. That is not because men doing those jobs would not get the injury, it is because they do not do the jobs. In fact, there are some very nice studies already done that show that men who do the same amount of repetitive work would have exactly the same likelihood of getting tenosynovitis. Women do not get it more often than men because their arms are frailer, as I have had it put to me on one occasion. They get it more often because the cause of the injuries is the number of repeats of the same action. It is usually a woman's problem because it is in the work that women do that the most repetition happens. On one page of the report there is a very nice reference to the need to change the activities that contribute to a job. It reads: Where a user's work involves a mix of activities such that it forms a meaningful and satisfying job, the perception of minor inadequacies in the ergonomics of the equipment or work place is likely to be minimised. It is not only the perception that is minimised, but also the likelihood of unsafe or ill-making outcome that is minimised. There is now a lot of evidence that says that when a person's job involves four or five different pieces of work about which a person revolves there is much less likelihood of repetition injury happening. I turn now to paragraph 7.53 of the report. It states: Clusters of miscarriages and birth deformities have been reported amongst pregnant women working with visual display units; such coincidences may not be significant and long term prospective studies, with appropriate controls, are the only ways in which the questions of causative links can be validly resolved. While I agree that we need valid resolutions and proper research, I also feel that anything that could possibly be held as a causal connection with miscarriages or birth deformities ought to be treated with the greatest of suspicion. I do not think we need the hard evidence before we start building in super-safe measures. I do not think we need to have birth deformities and miscarriages if we can possibly prevent them. If it is discovered that there is not a causal connection between them and their work hazards-visual display units in this case-let us discover that later. In the meantime, let us build the safety requirements as a prevention, rather than say: 'Well, we have not discovered that there is a cause. We will make it safe after the event'. I would like to see a clear emphasis on safety beforehand and have the evidence gathered later. The final point this chapter refers to is stress. I think there is much increasing evidence of the association of stress with the introduction of technology, not only because of the changes that are required to be made by workers, but also because of the increased rate of repetitive productive activities. I refer people to Charlie Chaplin's film Modern Times. I am not sure of the year in which it was made, but it was probably in the 1920s. If ever there was an excellent analysis of repetition injury some 60 years ago that we still seem not to have learnt it was Charlie Chaplin's film Modern Times. Perhaps if we put this report alongside his film, we will make some better judgments for the future. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.20) — I have had a chance to look at this report only in the last five minutes. I think it has been around for a few days but other matters have intervened. Therefore my remarks will be very much qualified by that fact. The document is entitled 'Technological Change and Employment'. The first thing I wish to say is that it is not, nor does it pretend to be, a document about technological change and work, because there is a vast array of work in the community that is not paid employment, not the least of which is that contributed by the full time homemaker. I wonder whether the Australian Science and Technology Council perhaps should have considered the impact of technological change on the enormously valuable work performed by that sector. I refer also to the fact that technological change has enormous effect on the consumer. Presumably the limited nature of this study did not enable ASTEC to refer to the dangers to consumers of the haphazard and uncontrolled introduction of technological change in the retail industry for example. The reference to the wholesale and retail industry is contained on page 109 of the report. A statement is made, which is not substantiated, about the introduction of product code numbering and scanning technology into the retail industry: . . . there is an indication that labour savings from the use of scanning may be offset in some firms by increased customer service. There is no supporting evidence for that statement. In fact, the preceding sentences state: The retail industry, and particularly the retail grocery industry, is experiencing a growing use of part-time and casual labour. The Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association in Australia is concerned about this trend because of the loss of both job security and career opportunities, and believes that if scanning were introduced widely in supermarkets the situation would be exacerbated. Then comes the statement I mentioned before: However, there is an indication that labour savings from the use of scanning may be offset in some firms by increased customer service. What? In supermarkets? Quite frankly, the experience is the reverse. That a supposedly educated body such as ASTEC should make that incredible statement without any evidentiary support being adduced is beyond me. I would like an opportunity at a later stage, perhaps during the adjournment debate, to give further detailed parliamentary consideration to this report, which no doubt is of considerable value. I emphasise that I have picked it up only in the last five minutes or so and therefore my comments are qualified accordingly. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(10.24) —I have listened to what Senator Harradine and preceding speakers have said in relation to the Australian Science and Technology Council report, 'Technological Change and Employment'. They support the view I wish to express; that is, that this is a matter of greater importance than can be given to it during the very short time available now. Therefore, I propose to the Senate that time be allocated for a considered and structured debate in relation to technological change and its impact on employment, either by way of a matter of public importance, which has limitations because of the number of speakers who can participate, or alternatively-and this may be a better arrangement-on the first reading of a Bill. In this way we would be able to have some discussion on this matter. To enable there to be some discussion as to the best method by which to bring this matter on, but with a view to ensuring that this matter can be debated at an early stage, I will in a moment seek leave to continue my remarks later and to adjourn the matter. However, I refer very briefly to something which people may find of interest. In 1981 the Society for Social Responsibility in Science conducted a fairly major seminar in Canberra entitled 'When Machines Replace People What Will People Do?'. At least two outstanding speakers made contributions to that seminar-the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the present speaker, in this chamber-I draw the distinction. The report of the seminar contains some quite worth while material which I think outlines some of the problems. The report of the Australian Science and Technology Council deals with these problems in perhaps a different sense. A large number of questions need to be addressed. So that these questions can be addressed at an early stage in a stuctured way and with some notice being given, I will seek leave to continue my remarks later. In this regard I understand that we can obtain the co-operation of the Government and other members of the chamber. I seek leave to continue my remarks later, Mr Deputy President. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —If leave is granted for Senator Peter Rae to continue his remarks later, debate on this paper will be adjourned. Is leave granted? Senator Cook —No. Senator Peter Rae —If I may explain, I sought to see whether any other senator wished to speak on this matter. I waited until no-one else rose to speak. If Senator Cook will do when he concludes his remarks what I was seeking to do I will withdraw my application for leave. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —We will arrange for the debate to be adjourned, Senator Rae. Senator COOK(Western Australia)(10.28) — I was not seeking in any way to disrupt what Senator Peter Rae was proposing to do because I think there is a lot of merit in his suggestion. I saw him bobbing and I thought I would dwell on what he had to say and follow his remarks. I am in the position of Senator Harradine in the sense that I received the report late yesterday and I have not had a chance to do it justice. However, some remarks ought to be made. This unquestionably important report deals with the most fundamental question that I am sure all parties in this chamber address themselves to. I refer to the question of full employment in a period of rapid and accelerating technological change. I must say, though, that the area of the report I find most disappointing is that area from page 152 through to page 157 concerning industrial relations. I think that this subject is an essential part in any consideration of employment and technological change, yet in a voluminous report it occupies, unfortunately, only five pages of analysis. I think that the important question the Australian community, not just the Parliament, should address itself to in terms of technological change is the difference between change and progress. I do not accept-and indeed some of the remarks of other senators in a discussion of this report indicate that they do not either-that all change is necessarily progress and that all change is good. I think it is time for the community to assert what sorts of changes it wants in the interests of improving our quality of life. In terms of the industrial relations component of the debate, I think spokesmen from industry and academia as well as from the unions all predict that in the future machines will do, if not all of the work, most of the work. But none of us has reached the situation in which we can agree on the means by which we can make a transition from the type and nature of employment we have now to that future scenario. Nor is there an agreement or an understanding about what the time line might be. I think following the Government's line of consensus decision making it is important that there be more discussion about adjusting to technological change in the work place. Unions are often painted in the position of being Luddites and of resisting change. But frequently the first time workers hear about technological innovation in the work place is when they are delegated to uncrate the new machines that often will replace or severely alter the nature of their work. There is little consultation about the introduction of technology. There is certainly very little ability for those workers to have a say and an input into the way in which that technology might best be used to provide work for all . The advantages of scientific progress through technology should be shared by all and not just by those who are able to buy the machines and who, as a consequence, throw others out of employment. A central matter in industrial relations is quite clearly a form of industrial democracy, a form of consultative process. Rather than the unions resisting the introduction of machines, which threaten employment and jobs in the future the change could occur smoothly on a consensus basis to the advantage of all employers and unions . I have referred to paragraph 8.62 which appears at page 152 of the report and deals with industrial relations. It indicates that one of the major questions is that of redundancy. I would argue that redundancy is not the major question. Redundancy occurs only after the fait accompli of technological change. The question then is: At what cost to an employer can he disperse his workers into the general work force? It is not a question of whether the change being introduced is desirable or how it can best be managed to share the advantages between the employer and the work force. We can look to comparable economies. I do not often accept that the Japanese economy is comparable to Australia's but at least workers looking forward to life long employment in the major areas of industry in Japan have security. Thus , industry in that country is able to embrace new technology more rapidly and easily. Workers in Australia, with a lack of job security, resist technological change because it threatens their futures. Until we answer the central question of how the advantages are to be shared through consultation we will have the stop-start progress which we have made in this area. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(10.33) —I rise also to speak to the motion to take note of the report headed 'Technological Change and Employment'. I support some of the comments made by Senator Cook. It seems to me that this report does not go into the matters which I lump together in the general phrase 'worker participation' as well as it should. I have been talking about worker participation for a long time. Most of the responses I get from management indicate to me that people believe that worker participation involves ownership. I come from Warrnambool where the Fletcher Jones organisation has demonstrated that the staff of a company may share ownership in a very big way to their benefit. But worker participation goes far beyond the question of shared ownership. Like Senator Cook I look with approval at some of the Japanese techniques. I draw attention to the Mitsubishi company in South Australia and NEC Australia Pty Ltd in Victoria. Both of those companies have demonstrated to Australian management the techniques which Australian managers ought to be looking at to develop the future of their companies. Unless Australian management starts to adopt some of those techniques this country will not make the progress that it ought to make in the production of quality goods which are available for sale at proper prices on overseas markets. Those companies have instituted proceedings which encourage their workers to make good quality products and put forward ideas which are to the advantage of the company. For example, I cite the case of an employee who constantly tells managers that a door is hung on the wrong side of a doorway. In some Australian companies that sort of nonsense will go on year after year as each employee puts forward this complaint and nothing is done about it. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The time allowed for the consideration of Government papers has expired. Senator MARTIN(Queensland) —Mr Deputy President, I seek your indulgence to have clarified a matter concerning the procedure with papers. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —You may proceed. Senator MARTIN —We have reached paper No. 2, out of nine on the list for today, and according to the Notice Paper, under Orders of the Day certain papers tabled on 31 May, 1 June and 24 August 1983 will come up this afternoon. Does that mean that any consideration of papers Nos 3 to 9 on today's list for presentation follows all those other papers that are already listed for further debate, or does it mean that papers Nos 3 to 9 will come on at 2.15 this afternoon and receive some sort of attention? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The situation is that papers Nos 3 to 9 will be considered , if time permits. Under the sessional order, they will follow the other papers. Senator MARTIN —In that case, I seek leave to make a brief statement to the Senate about how satisfactory these arrangements are. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Is leave granted? Senator Robertson —No. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Leave is not granted. Senator MARTIN(Queensland) —I move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent me from making a statement relating to the presentation of Government Papers. Senator Robertson —You can't muck up on Standing Orders completely. It has been agreed that it is half an hour. Senator MARTIN —I am not trying to speak to the papers. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Martin can move the suspension of the Standing Orders if she so wishes. Senator MARTIN —Thank you, Mr Deputy President. I know there have been difficulties with procedure in dealing with papers and honourable senators have feelings about what is adequate, but certain papers have received some debate on previous days of sittings of the Senate. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Martin, you must confine yourself to the motion to suspend the Standing Orders. Senator MARTIN —I need Senate approval of the suspension of the Standing Orders so that I can make a brief comment about the method of procedure for the presentation of papers and about how unsatisfactory it is. We might look yet again at how we arrange discussion, not just because of an interest in a particular subject but because the list of papers today includes a ministerial statement that, if we adopt normal procedure and follow the Notice Paper, will not be responded to by the Opposition for months. Question resolved in the affirmative. Statement Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(10.39) —Mr Deputy President, as I was saying a minute ago-apparently at the wrong instant-I know that there have been difficulties with the way in which the Senate proceeds to arrange the presentation of papers and with whether individual senators feel that they get a fair go in regard to speaking on certain papers. We have never been able to deal adequately with all papers but sometimes we have dealt adequately with a number of them. Today a very important report came up as paper No. 2. As it happened, a number of honourable senators-quite rightly-wanted to speak on it. That has meant that items 3 to 9 will now go well down the list of matters for debate by the Senate. They will go behind some papers that have already attracted some debate and comment. In fact, they will go behind paper No. 2, on which several people spoke today. I draw the Senate's attention to paper No. 8, which is a ministerial statement. Senator Walters —No. 7, too. Senator MARTIN —I am interested in No. 8. There are others. The Notice Paper indicates that a ministerial statement will be made later today in the Senate by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan). The ministerial statement to which I refer, on incentives to the film industry, was made in the House of Representatives yesterday by the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen). The Opposition has not responded to this simply because the shadow Minister is not a member of the House of Representatives. It may not be desirable that every ministerial statement receives the same sort of treatment that Senator Ryan will give her ministerial statement today in her own chamber, but I submit that it is utterly unsatisfactory that ministerial statements can be brought in, be tabled and possibly not debated for months because of this arrangement of the papers. I would like to suggest that perhaps ministerial statements could receive some precedence on the list of reports but others-for example, those who feel strongly about paper No. 2 today-would not accept that. This arrangement is absolutely unsatisfactory. These ministerial statements will go so far down the Notice Paper, without a word of comment on their content from the Opposition, in any official capacity, because of the way in which we handle papers in the Senate. Consideration ought to be given to ministerial statements at least being put in a category of their own. Senator Missen —I support what has been said by Senator Martin. It seems to me that the way in which these matters are being handled is very unsatisfactory. I endeavoured-- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Martin sought leave to make a statement. That does not permit others to make a statement. Senator Missen —I seek leave to make a statement covering another point. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Is leave granted? Senator Robertson —It is in their hands. If they want to waste time let them do it but they should not complain about not getting their business through. Senator Missen —Mr Deputy President, if I have obtained gracious leave from the Government Whip I will try not to waste time. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Missen, you have been granted leave to make a statement on the subject. Senator MISSEN(Victoria) —I will make a statement and I will endeavour not to waste time. This morning when I raised a protest about the fact that we did not even have a copy of the list, I was shushed and told that we did. I found that the supply of papers had run out. Members on the back bench did not receive them . Therefore, we did not even know what would be coming down today. This situation does not only affect statements that are made by Ministers. Paper No. 4 concerns a report which has not been debated at all. So far as Senator Martin' s remarks are concerned, it is absolutely right that there ought to be an opportunity for the members of the other parties to make some comment at the time that a paper is brought down. We know that after that stage the paper will disappear for months and there will be no interest in the public mind. The media , of course, with their usual lack of stability, lose interest and will not again take up an interest in these matters. It should be possible to have some debate on these papers at the time they are brought down. What we are doing today is regurgitating some reports which were brought down in May, which I think will be of very little interest now. The papers which have been brought down today need to receive some comment today instead of other matters being discussed. I strongly support what Senator Martin said about changing the way of dealing with papers. Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory) —by leave-I will be brief. In response to Senator Martin, honourable senators will recall that previously we had a 90- minute session for the consideration of papers. We now have three half-hours, which makes a total of 1 1/2 hours, in which to discuss them. In addition to this, an hour under General Business has been set aside for the consideration of papers. Again, that is done over two half-hour periods. In other words, we have an hour more than we had before. The situation that exists at the moment is exactly the same as that which existed previously, with the addition of one hour . The papers can go on the Notice Paper and be discussed at a later time. Therefore, we have actually gained an hour; not lost anything. Senator Martin —I did not say that. Senator ROBERTSON —Yes we have, Senator. That is the situation that exists. We do have an opportunity to discuss papers. The ministerial statements which are brought in in this place are given the opportunity of full debate, as the statement which is to be made by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs ( Senator Ryan) will be. Statements which are made in the other place, exactly as was the case under the former Government, will be brought in and placed on the Notice Paper. Exactly the same thing occurred previously. All I am suggesting is that we are acting exactly as we did before except we have added one hour to the time given for the debate on papers. I make the additional point that we have a good arrangement with the Whip, which Senator Martin would know about, that if there is a particular paper we need to look at then we can discuss it in the morning and do something about re-arrangement. There is no attempt at any time to quash debate on any of these issues, but it does get a little disturbing when the inference is made that we in some way are cutting back on times-- Senator Martin —I did not say that and I was not blaming the Government. I said the Senate needs to look at this arrangement. Senator ROBERTSON —All right. Yesterday agreement was reached for a three week trial period of sittings. If the honourable senator can suggest a better way of handling the situation let her come up with it during the last week of the three week trial sitting period and then by all means that will be discussed by the Whips and put to the leaders as a better way of handling the situation. Each of the people who spoke this morning is experienced. They know certain things must be done in this place and that we have to get through in a certain time, and they know that we cannot give over all of the debating time to the consideration of papers, much as we would all like to. There is business to be dealt with and this must be done. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —As this matter arose out of a procedural question to me from Senator Martin, I think I should make it clear that the sessional order adopted yesterday will have exactly the same result procedurally as at the moment. So the question of whether that procedure is satisfactory may be raised when the trial period is completed. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —by leave-I endorse what has been said, including what was said by the Government Whip. I take this opportunity to mention also the general question of hours of sitting and hours of business. The Government Whip has from time to time, including most recently, given me an advance copy of the sitting hours. I make that clear so that nobody runs away with any misapprehension following what I said yesterday. I now understand that once the Government Whip provides me with an advance copy of these matters I can take them up with either him or the Minister responsible for Government business in the Senate, and I will do so. I thank him and his staff for their co-operation in these matters. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) -On behalf of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory I present two reports on proposals for variations on the plan of layout of the city plan of Canberra and its environs, the seventy-fifth series item 2, seventy-ninth series and the eightieth series dated August 1983. I seek leave to make a brief statement. Leave granted. Senator REID —The reports I have just tabled on the seventy-ninth series of variations to the city plan cover 12 variations and recommend the approval of work valued at $34.8m. The Committee, in considering these proposed variations, took evidence from several individuals and community groups as well as a member of the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly during three days of public hearings. The Committee approves the variation at Kaleen to provide further residential development subject to the provision of a school crossing. The Committee believes that safe means must be provided for young children to cross streets on which a primary school is located. The Committee finds unacceptable the current practice of the National Capital Development Commission and the Department of Territories and Local Government of not always providing either a school crossing or an underpass at a major entry point to a primary school except in the few cases where a crossing would be unsafe. Variation 7 is concerned with changes to roadways in Civic to provide a site for the proposed White Industries Ltd development of a hotel convention centre and offices. The Committee has made approval of this variation subject to the gazettal of Glebe Park simultaneously with the approval of the White Industries proposal. Regardless of whether the White Industries proposal gains approval, the Committee recommends that Glebe Park be gazetted as a public park before the end of 1983. The Committee also recommends the inclusion in the park of a number of mature trees which are currently in the road reservation. The Glebe Park area contains a number of mature elm trees over 100 years old which are an attractive and important part of our heritage. Their preservation must be ensured. The urgent need for adequate retail facilities in Tuggeranong and community facilities in Kaleen, which has resulted from poor planning in the past, has forced the Committee to approve arrangements which may prove to be unsatisfactory in the long term. The Committee is most dissatisfied with being placed in this situation. In view of the lack of shopping facilities and other services, the Committee approves the road variations which will enable up to 14,000 square metres of retail space and 4,000 square metres of non-retail space at Erindale. In respect of this particular variation three members of the Committee have tabled what is in name a dissenting report but which in a very real sense approves of the road variation but has reservation about what should occur with the shopping site that is proposed. The purpose of the Committee is to vary the city plan and the road arrangements which have been approved for variation are the same whatever the size of the shopping centre that it may finally be determined should be placed on the site. For a long time it was suggested that the site size should be 6,000 square metres but subsequently it was suggested, and the National Capital Development Commission has proposed, that it be 14,000 square metres. At the hearing we heard evidence from Mr Pead, who is the Chairman of the Canberra Commercial Development Authority, that it should be 24,000 square metres. There is no doubt whatever from the evidence that we heard that the impact of this site on the Wanniassa shopping centre will be quite severe. That shopping centre is too close to Erindale and it has been allowed to become too large for the area. But there is not the slightest doubt that the people in the Tuggeranong Valley are presently deprived of shopping area. It appears that the small neighbourhood shopping areas in some of those suburbs should have been constructed much sooner than they have been. There is confusion about whether there will be a town centre in the area and, if there is, whether there will be retail space in it. It is this confusion about the future of retail space in the area that has caused us to raise in our dissenting report the question of whether the shopping area should be 14,000 square metres of retail space or whether it should be a staged development. We ask that the whole plan of the area be looked at as soon as possible. The difference in the two reports is that the one of the majority of the Committee suggests 14,000 square metres forthwith whereas the three of us who have dissented from that report have questioned whether that is the right amount of space at present. As I have said, the roads which are to be varied are the same variations in any event. Comrie Street is a street which needs to be looked at again in terms of the nature of the development. It is very important that the construction of Wynn Street take into account the fact that children and students from the Erindale College will be frequently crossing it. The nature of the crossing should be so determined as to focus it in one place and minimise the danger. The other matter which we highlight in the report is the fact that any tavern in the shopping centre, which is very close to the Erindale College, should be at the farthest possible distance from the college. The important thing is to get on with the construction of shops in that area of Canberra as a matter of high priority. To continue with the seventy-fifth series of variations, the previous Committee withheld approval for a new subdivision of 114 detached housing blocks in Giralang until a commitment was received for the construction of an access road linking the subdivision with the rest of the suburb. The Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) has now agreed to the required access being included in the forward construction program and the Committee approves the variation at the cost of $1.6m. The other report which is being tabled relates to the eightieth series of variations and concerns the access roads to the Canberra Technology Park at Bruce. In considering this the Committee noted the House of Assembly report and took evidence from the Department, the NCDC and Lend Lease Corporation Pty Ltd, and held public hearings on 14 August. The development is expected to attract high technology industry to the Australian Capital Territory, generating 300 jobs during the construction phase and providing 700 to 1,000 jobs on completion , with a flow-on of employment in support facilities outside the park. The Committee approves the variation. However, we were concerned at the continuing lack of environmental protection legislation in the Australian Capital Territory covering matters such as air and water pollution and occupational health and safety. The Committee recommends that the drafting of this legislation be given urgent priority. In the debate this morning on the report entitled 'Technological Change and Employment', it was mentioned that we did not have the benefit of seeing that report. But it is clear from that report that the health and safety aspects of new technology need to be taken into account. The Committee requests that the legislation for the Australian Capital Territory be produced as soon as possible . Funding Guidelines and Ministerial Statement Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs) —I table funding guidelines for the Commonwealth Education Commissions for 1984 and seek leave to make a statement in connection with the guidelines. Leave granted. Senator RYAN —In 1984 the Government will make available $3,363m for schools and tertiary education in December 1982 prices, which is in real terms an increase of $65m or 2 per cent over the 1983 allocation. The main thrust of the guidelines to the commissions on the allocation of this money is to introduce greater equity into Australia's education system as well as to address youth unemployment and the low participation rate of young people in post-compulsory education. The guidelines demonstrate the high priority the Government gives to education. Despite financial stringencies necessitated by the previous Administration's policies, the Government has allocated sufficient funds to allow a significant start to be made on all major policy commitments. A major innovation will be a new program to encourage young people over the minimum school leaving age to further their education in schools and tertiary institutions. This will cost $71.6m in 1984. The greatest part of this money will be spent in the government school sector because it is in these schools where the problem of early leavers is greatest. However, considerable benefits will flow also to non-government schools from expenditure in such areas as curriculum development. The new program to encourage young people to participate in useful and fulfilling education activities will be the centrepiece of the overall framework of youth policies which are being developed by the Government. The program, to be known as the participation and equity program, will incorporate the existing school to work transition program from the beginning of 1984. The $71.6m allocated to the program will be shared between schools and technical and further education. The new program will have the twin objectives of increasing participation in education and introducing greater equity in the Government's overall provision for young people. The Government wishes to achieve a situation where, by the end of this decade, most young people complete the equivalent of a full secondary education, either in school or in a TAFE institution, or in some combination of work and education . The guidelines give recognition to the fact that government schools educate the great majority of Australian children. The Government is obliged to ensure that government schools operate at high standards and are able to offer effective education for children from all backgrounds. However, special efforts have also been made to help meet the needs of non-government schools. Under these guidelines about 2,000 non-government schools will receive an increase in their Commonwealth per capita grants in real terms in 1984. For 1985 and beyond the Commission has been asked to consult widely in the process of preparing a new scheme for the funding of non-government schools. Considerations of equity and financial limitations required that the funds for needy schools be found partly by some reallocation within the 1984 education Budget. Grants for 41 schools which are the least in need of government assistance will be reduced by 25 per cent next year. All of the schools which have had their funding reduced will have the capacity to continue to operate at levels well above average government school standards. Except in extraordinary circumstances and on the recommendation of the Commission, the Government will not wish to vary decisions on schools affected by this policy in 1984. Such circumstances would include dramatic changes in the school's situation since the data collection year such as difficulties caused by a natural disaster. Any school wishing to receive such consideration will have its finances and other circumstances thoroughly investigated by the Commission. The Schools Commission's guidelines, in addition to the participation program, allow funds for a new Computer Education Program under which $18m will be provided for secondary schools over three years, starting with $6m in 1984. The guidelines also allow for the restoration of retrospective cost supplementation arrangements, thus enabling the return of orderly planning to education programs , and for a significant increase in capital funds for government schools. Included among the programs are moves to improve educational outcomes for women and for those from disadvantaged backgrounds, including Aborigines. Within the capital allocations for government and non-government schools, $7m will be earmarked for schools serving Aboriginal communities. The funds for the integration of handicapped children in regular schools will be increased by 20 per cent in real terms while funds for ethnic schools and migrant education will be maintained in real terms. The Curriculum Development Centre is to be reactivated within the Schools Commission and will provide support for, amongst other things, the development of community languages. At the tertiary level the guidelines provide for increased participation and greater equality of access. An additional $10m is being provided for at least an additional 3,000 places in higher education in 1984. In recommending the use of these funds the Commission is asked to seek to increase the participation of women and disadvantaged groups including Aborigines, migrants and the handicapped, especially those who live in outer metropolitan areas. Overall, the tertiary guidelines provide for an increase in expenditure of 1.5 per cent in real terms. Beyond this, the restoration of retrospective cost supplementation will make an important contribution to stability and rational planning in tertiary education. The guidelines to the Commonwealth Schools Commission and the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission have demonstrated the Government's desire to increase equity in Australian education. I commend the guidelines as an expression of education policies which will benefit the majority of young Australians. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(11.01) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the papers. In the Sydney Morning Herald of 10 October 1981, the following quotation from Senator Susan Ryan appeared: It is with reluctance that I for one conclude . . . that the freedom to send one 's children to an independent school is bought at too high a price for the rest of society. Senator Ryan —Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order. Senator PETER BAUME —Of course, you are very sensitive about that, are you not? Senator Ryan —I seek to make a correction in relation to the quotation which has just been alleged by Senator Peter Baume. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. If you have been misrepresented you may seek leave to make a personal explanation after Senator Peter Baume has concluded his comments. Senator Ryan —I will do so, Mr Deputy President. Senator PETER BAUME —I have just quoted from the Sydney Morning Herald of 10 October 1981. What we are seeing today in the tabling of these guidelines is the beginning of a campaign to put that kind of ideology into effect. The guidelines represent the first half of the Australian Labor Party's education program for the coming year. The other half is contained in this week's Budget, and what a sorry program it shows. In the Budget allocations, allowances for students fall far behind the increases given in unemployment benefit. The incentives for education, to match the fine words of this Government, are not provided. The incentive to leave education in favour of unemployment is increased. The Budget has shown the low priority accorded by this Government to education, as contained in the guidelines. It is very important that both-these guidelines and the Budget-be brought down. They have done more to reduce confidence and to cast doubt upon the bona fides of this Government than have any of its many other punitive actions. The guidelines set out a litany of broken election promises in the area of education, broken promises which I will detail. They set out dishonoured assurances as to procedure and protection for those who are to be hurt by what is in them and they contain not very subtle threats about what some sectors of education can face. They are riddled with Senator Ryan's ideology. I have quoted already from the Book Review in the Sydney Morning Herald. The Australian Capital Territory branch of the Australian Labor Party, of which the honourable senator was a member-- Senator Ryan —Is a member! Senator PETER BAUME —Of which the honourable senator is a member, at its June 1982 conference, authorised an Australian Capital Territory education policy which included, at paragraph 10, its acceptance of the need for an integrated public schools system and set out- Senator Ryan —What happened to that resolution, Senator? Senator PETER BAUME —I imagine that when the Australian Labor Party got into government it might have considered it politic to submerge it. But at the time it took government its policy in the Australian Capital Territory-the honourable senator's division-was to seek an integrated public schools system as contained in the policy document of her party and published for public discussion. No wonder there is concern. The Government has even started talking today about its goals in education no longer being equality of opportunity for Australians but equality of outcomes. I believe that many Australians would want to discuss this and would be concerned about it. Equality of opportunity is something all Australians seek but if the Government is seeking and demanding equality of outcomes it will have to penalise those who are able to achieve-because of their own effort, perhaps because of natural endowment of intelligence or whatever- outcomes which are not the equal of other people. Senator Harradine —Senator, the Minister agrees with you that that is the Government's policy. Senator PETER BAUME —The Minister has agreed that that is its policy and that agreement should be out in the public arena. It is no longer equality of opportunity; it is now equality of outcomes. I believe that instructions have gone to her Department that it is now to talk about equality of outcomes whenever it communicates with the public. As honourable senators would know, these guidelines have been greeted with dismay and criticism. They have not been well received. Looking first at the Schools Commission guidelines and then at the Tertiary Education Commission guidelines, we see that several facts are not brought out in them. First, it is fact that most government schools in Australia operate at better resource levels than do most non-government schools. That is fact. The poorer schools in Australia are not in the government sector. To argue that the government sector is being disadvantaged is simply to ignore the available facts. The neediest schools in Australia are non-government schools. If we look at what happened during the seven years of Liberal Government we see that the greatest improvement in dollars per head spent on school children occurred in the government sector. The greatest numbers of dollars per head were spent in the government sector. This was certainly so in some school areas. Pupil-teacher ratios saw the greatest improvement in the government sector during these years. While the independent schools and the government sector were equivalent in what they were able to do, the Catholic sector of school education had the greatest needs. It has the greatest need to be reassured and protected. It cannot be reassured or protected by the guidelines. The guideline decisions and the Budget, if taken together, give an indication of what the Labor Party has done in education. First, it has reduced its total education spending as a proportion of total government outlays by 0.3 per cent in real terms. It has reduced expenditure on all student assistance schemes by 2 per cent in real terms. It has reduced the assistance for tertiary students by 6 per cent in real terms. Because the means test has not kept up, it has reduced the eligibility for the tertiary education assistance scheme by about 0.8 per cent in real terms. It has reduced other living allowances under other awards by 4 to 5 per cent in real terms. It has reduced expenditure on the Aboriginal secondary grants scheme, the Aboriginal study grants scheme and the assistance for isolated children scheme. Those are three areas in particular need, and the value of those benefits has been reduced by 4 per cent in real terms. Senator Teague —They are all real cuts. Senator PETER BAUME —They are all real cuts. Under the Hon. Susan Ryan as Minister, there have been real cuts in the value of what is available to Australian students. I hope she is proud of what she has been able to do for education in this country. If we look at the gap between the unemployment benefit and TEAS, we have seen it widen-not narrow, widen-as a result of the Minister's first effort in her stewardship of the education resources of this country. The incentives to leave education and become unemployed are greater now than they were when the Minister took over. All the Labor Party rhetoric has stressed the importance of participation and access in education, but the reduction in education spending and in student assistance expenditure shows what a hollow exercise that has been. In addition, as I have said, the rhetoric has contained a litany of broken promises. Let me set out what the promises included. In higher education, Labor promised to provide post-doctoral fellowships for 300 scholars to boost the national research effort. That promise has not been honoured. It promised to increase progressively student assistance through the tertiary education assistance scheme-TEAS-until it equalled the single unemployment benefit and then to maintain the nexus. Not only has that promise not been honoured, but the gap has been widened. It promised to raise the TEAS means test until it equated with average weekly earnings. That promise has not been honored. The Labor Party promised to establish an emergency student loan scheme to replace our loan scheme. That promise has not been honoured. In relation to schools, Labor promised to institute a new program for primary schools at a level of $9m per annum. It put a money level on it. That promise has not been honoured. It promised to provide an additional $37m in the first year of the Government for recurrent resources for government schools. That promise was not honoured. It promised to provide an additional $16m for needy non-government schools in the first year of its program. That promise has not been honoured. It promised to provide $24m over three years for computer education. It has not honoured that promise completely; it has provided a lesser amount. The Government now says it is going to provide $18m. Of course, it does that against the background that its own advisory body, the Commonwealth Schools Commission, has recommended the expenditure of $125m over four years as being essential for the satisfactory progress of an adequate computer program. Senator Teague —And only $4.8m this year. Senator PETER BAUME —Only $4.8m this year, another promise from which they have retreated and which they have dishonoured. The Labor Party promised to establish a revolving loan fund, with an initial contribution of $5m, to bring forward the construction of planned new non-government schools. That promise has not been honoured. In technical and further education it promised a special triennial program costing $30m to upgrade equipment and facilities for the latest technology and to stimulate employment in Australian manufacturing. That promise has not been honoured. Labor promised an immediate boost-what does the word ' immediate' mean? It means it will do something the moment it takes government-of $15m for capital and recurrent funds to the States. That promise has not been honoured. In the area of migrant education it promised $45 per capita grants for ethnic schools. That promise has not been honoured. It promised the provision of $3.68m per annum to cover the costs involved in transferring all eligible casual migrant teachers to permanent positions. It made a big deal about that but the promise has not been honoured. Against that background, the Government has done certain things. It has decided to start to penalise, to jeopardise the existence of and to threaten certain areas within certain parts of the non-government school sector. It has moved now to break the percentage link which has inflated grants as costs rise. It has moved now to penalise 41 schools in total contradiction to the process which it promised, in the statement which Mr Hurford issued at the time Labor presented its election manifesto, would be followed. It might be worth going back and looking at what was said at that time. The document states: If non government school authorities decide that the resource objective they seek to achieve over a responsible time period is a parity of resources with government schools, then Labor would welcome this declaration and contribute to its achievement. That was the promise. The actuality is that the Government has abandoned the percentage link without that consultation and without the non-government schools having that opportunity. But the Government said more than that. I quote again: A period of time will be required to allow the Schools Commission to determine the community standard and to allow schools, in the light of that determination, to make their decision. Funding at present levels will be maintained during this period. The Government made a specific promise that it would not move to disadvantage schools until their community standard had been developed and until schools had had a chance to make their decision in the light of that community standard. That promise was issued before the election in order to win the votes of the gullible. It has been dishonoured by Senator Ryan and her Government in the guidelines they have brought down. Mr Hurford also said: I do have to say at the moment-- That was February this year- the assessment of what is a 'wealthy' school is totally inadequate . . . We do not currently have an accurate assessment. Mr Hurford said that in an attempt to placate and convince those who felt they were under threat. We have a litany of broken promises which the guidelines and the Budget reveal. The Government can have little joy in what it promised and what it has put aside. Senator Harradine —He was the shadow Minister, wasn't he? Senator PETER BAUME —He was the shadow Minister speaking for the Australian Labor Party. In penalising the 41 schools Labor has ended at one stroke the principle of a universal entitlement of every Australian child to a basic grant for his education. Included among those 41 schools we have, for example, a small school in St Kilda with 66 pupils which charges no fees. But that school has been judged as one of the richest 41 schools in Australia and has been included in the list of schools whose funds will be cut. The Minister has used a very blunt index in this respect. With the abandoning of the percentage linkage that determines funding, the Government has placed in jeopardy the future planning which every non-government system needs to make and at one stroke taken away the assurance of Government grants to help with the education of children in that system. Most non-government children are educated in poor Catholic schools. Even the poorest Catholic school can have no guarantee that its grants will inflate each year as costs go up. It will be dependent now upon an annual appropriation by government. Whilst this Government is prepared to index benefit after benefit in other areas, it has removed the index link which protected non-government schools, most of them Catholic systemic schools and most of them poor-schools which represented the poorest part of the education system in Australia. It would be very interesting to know why the Government moved so readily to dishonour so many of its election promises, why it moved so quickly to set aside the assurances it gave when it was going to the election. Senator Chaney —That is what you get for dealing with socialists who are secularists. Senator PETER BAUME —I am grateful for my colleague's assistance. The guidelines for the Tertiary Education Commission were not well received within the tertiary sector. It is interesting to examine the criticisms which came from the higher education round table, from the Federation of Australian University Staff Associations and other groups which clearly, while welcoming some of the positive things contained in the guidelines, were concerned about some of the total inadequacies. This Government preaches greater participation. If it wants greater participation in higher education it must pay for it. It has shown very little inclination to pay for it. The guidelines provide $10m extra for higher education. Senator Ryan has indicated that that will provide 3,000 extra places. Simple arithmetic will reveal that on a dollar per head basis it will provide just about half of the cost of maintaining a university or higher education place at the present time. The higher education round table has taken the Minister to task. This is not just an Opposition objection; it is an objection from within the sector about the inadequacy of that amount of money to meet the goal which the Minister herself has laid down in her guidelines. The Government simply is not providing enough resources to do the job. It is pointless the Minister talking about extra participation unless she and her Government put the resouces in place to make that a reality. I ask honourable senators to recall the Government's assurances on equipment funding. The 1984 allocation of $70.7m for equipment funding is no higher than it was in 1982. It is all very well to talk about equipping institutions to cope with technological change, but it means that the rate of technological change in the work place is not being reflected, even in a modest way, in equipment funding for universities and colleges. The guidelines give no hint of the promised return to triennial grants for capital and equipment funding. The Australian Labor Party made the promise but again it has failed to deliver. Another question arises in relation to the tertiary education guidelines. Senator Ryan has placed great stress upon the need to take more disadvantaged groups into higher education, but few specific proposals have been made as to how to provide the groups with that access. We do not know whether the Minister, through the Commission, has simply given instructions to each institution that it is to take a certain number, as yet unspecified, of disadvantaged people. Is she proposing programs of affirmative action? Is she setting aside the principle of entry on merit? If so, let the Minister come out and say so. I refer to another part of the guidelines. Included in those guidelines is a reduction of 25 per cent in the subsidy which is available for colleges and halls of residence. There is already a critical shortage of accommodation on campus. She is talking about increased participation; she is talking about participation being easier for those who have disadvantages, which includes those from remote areas. Why, then, is there a 25 per cent cut in accommodation? Senator Teague —It is all rhetoric. Senator PETER BAUME —It is all rhetoric. My colleague reminds me of another program which was cut. I refer to the in-service program for teacher training, which is funded through the Commission. That was cut by 40 per cent. Senator Teague —$7m. Senator PETER BAUME —It was cut-by $7m, a 40 per cent cut. What kind of educational priority did this represent, hidden behind the verbiage that the Government would put the matter under further study? It was a cut of 40 per cent in what has been a valuable program. It seems that higher education will have to await the new 1985-87 triennium for any promised initiatives to appear in relation to broadened access or increased participation in higher education. We will have to look ahead to that triennium to pick up the things not included by Senator Ryan in these guidelines. I suggest that Senator Ryan read with care the Press release put out by FAUSA in which she is taken to task. I finish by coming back to a comment which I made earlier, and that is that the guidelines have to be seen in conjunction with the Budget provision. I would like to quote from a comment by Helen Trinca in a recent edition of the Australian. In her higher education supplement she put the relationship quite succinctly. She said: To be seen to be boosting participation is politically vital for a government which has made much of the need to adapt to changing technologies and employment shifts. But it will be buying that growth on the cheap unless it recognises that some institutions are already stretched to cope with increased demand. More pressing still is the need to provide enough money for students to survive : If there is no increase in TEAS in the Budget, the Government's participation drive will become a hollow exercise indeed. We know what happened to student assistance in the Budget; it was cut in real terms. When one takes together the Budget provisions for students and the guidelines provisions for schools and tertiary education, it is easy to see why that sector is plagued by uncertainty, by fear, by a sense of threat and by a great sense of disillusionment with this first offering by the Labor Government. The broken promises and the penalties involved in these guidelines are well understood throughout the community. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(11.28) —I join the debate for just one moment to take the opportunity to correct a misunderstanding which Senator Baume seems to be intent on promoting. Senator Baume, in his opening remarks, referred to a book review by me which appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald on 10 October 1981. That review was of a book by Shirley Williams who is, as everybody here will know, one of the leaders of the British Social Democrats. It is an unfortunate matter that the Sydney Morning Herald, in printing the review I had sent to it, made a typographical distortion of what I had said. Senator Peter Baume —How convenient. Senator RYAN —I ask Senator Baume to listen. I am quite happy to defend and argue things that I have said. I am sure enough that those things will be provocative to Senator Baume without his having to rely on something which I did not say. In the course of the book, Shirley Williams makes the following judgment about the effect of the private school system on British society. On page 158 of her book, she says: It is with reluctance that I for one conclude that the freedom to send one's children to an independent school is bought at too high a price for the rest of society. That is a judgment by Shirley Williams, of the British Social Democrats, about the British school system. This appears in the review which I sent to the Sydney Morning Herald as a quotation from Shirley Williams. For reasons that the Sydney Morning Herald has never managed to explain to me, the newspaper distorted the printing of the review so that it appeared as if that was my own judgment. I do not want to enter into debate about whether that is my own judgment on the British independent school system-probably I am not qualified to make that sort of judgment because I have spent very little time in Britain-but I think that in the interests of an informed debate about education it would be better for Senator Peter Baume to address himself to the statements that I have made rather than to statements that Shirley Williams has made. To substantiate the correction which I am making I table the review in the form in which I submitted it to the Sydney Morning Herald-if honourable senators read it they will see that in the way in which it is presented it does not make sense; it is clearly a typographical error-and the appropriate page from Shirley Williams's book where it is quite clear that it is she and not I who is the author of that comment. I now table these documents. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(11.31) —Senator Peter Baume has set out very clearly the promises of the Australian Labor Party in the election campaign, the standards that it was setting for education at the tertiary and secondary levels , and the sense of pent up anger it was trying to express towards the former Government. This statement on the guidelines for the secondary and tertiary sectors and the Budget which was announced this week, indicate that all of those promises have been forgotten; they are unfulfilled. Senator Baume set out very clearly that list of promises, all of which are now shattered. I want to concentrate on some particular aspects of the guidelines in a little more detail but, first of all, I note that the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs ( Senator Ryan), in her remarks in the Senate today, talked about the financial stringencies of the last Government harming education. This is a myth which is compounded by the financial stringency of the present Government as expressed in these guidelines and in the Budget announcements on education. The increase in education spending for next year, in money terms, will be 11 per cent. Yet the year before, under the Fraser Government, the increase in spending was 13 per cent. The year before that the increase was 14 per cent. The Australian Financial Review, in its analysis of the Budget, carefully set out the contrast between the last two years of the Fraser Government, in terms of education spending, and this whimper of spending from the present Government. The increase, even though it is a small real increase, is less. There was a greater real increase during the last two years of the Fraser Government than there is under this ALP initiative. The Minister has the audacity to come into this chamber and introduce a statement about the so-called myth of the financial stringencies of the former Fraser Government. If there is to be some such accusation about the former Government, let it be clearly understood that there is greater financial stringency in the guidelines which have been brought before us today and in the Budget this week. By this set of decisions in education the Government has pulled off a double offence. It has offended its own supporters. It has offended those who have already seen the dangers of the Labor Government; they have realised that they are under attack. Let me say something about the Government's supporters. The Teachers Federation, both nationally and in the States, contributed more money towards the ALP's election campaign than any other single group in Australia contributed to any political party. Where is the pay-off? The pay-off is not to be seen in these decisions. There is a small increase in education spending. Where is the fulfilment of the promises that the Australian Labor Party made to that major lobby in Australia, the teachers, through their left-wing national and state unions? Those supporters are disappointed. Members of the Institute of Teachers in South Australia came to see me last week and expressed their dismay at the decisions of the Government. For example, they highlighted the $7m direct cut to the professional development of teachers. The very people who supported the ALP in the last election have suffered a direct 40 per cent cut in terms of teachers' professional development. They know about it and it hurts. They are complaining about this Government that has made false promises and is not fulfilling promises. Of course, they have all the more confirmed the opposition of those who were not supporters of the Australian Labor Party in the last election campaign, those in the non-government schools and many in the technical and further education sector who knew they were under attack. I see the guidelines as compounded rhetoric without substance. Participation is a major theme of the rhetoric, yet where is the evidence of it in the decisions that have been made? The tertiary education assistance scheme has been cut. Student allowances have suffered a real cut. Students are worse off after the Budget than they were before. Small increases have been allowed. The 5 per cent increase for TEAS, for example, is less than half the inflation rate. If TEAS were a means to greater participation, to allow more access to women, migrants and to those from families on low incomes, why has not the Government done something about the statements made by Labor spokesmen for years? The tertiary education assistance scheme has in fact suffered a real cut. At the same time, where is the emergency loans scheme that the ALP made a lot of noise about, particularly in the early part of this year? It was quick to abolish the idea of the loans scheme which the former Government was to introduce this year-a $50m increase in direct financial resources for tertiary education. That $50m has been denied to the students of Australia. Has any loans scheme been introduced by this Government? There is not one dollar. The Budget is totally silent about a loans scheme. Not only have student allowances suffered a real cut, but also no loans scheme has been introduced. Students are doubly worse off. All the rhetoric about participation, access to education and so on from Labor spokesmen is hollow. Whilst Labor spokesmen may have nice fancy phrases about women, migrants and Aborigines and those who come from poor families having access to tertiary education, there is no evidence at all in these guidelines that the Government has helped those students. There is one exception, perhaps, and that is the much commended initiative to provide 100 Aboriginal teacher training places. That was a promise of the former Government. The ALP said: 'Me too. We will fulfil that one'. I commend it. The ALP has this small achievement but the guidelines are empty rhetoric. The supporters of the Government, just as much as its opponents, have noticed it. The Government has, by these guidelines, achieved a compounding of double losers . It has lost its opponents and it has lost its supporters. I will say something directly about one of the initiatives that is supposed to increase participation in tertiary education. An amount of $10m has been allocated to allow 3,000 more students to enrol in tertiary education. This is set out at page 10 of the guidelines which state that the Government's immediate objective in higher education was to increase participation in higher education by providing for at least an additional 3,000 students in universities and colleges of advanced education in 1984 and that the additional $10m recurrent funds provided for this purpose would enable more staff to be employed. When the cost of a tertiary student place is more than $5,000 per student, how is it possible to fund an additional 3,000 students for $10m? There will be less than 2,000 students. Again, the rhetoric of the Government is found wanting. It claims that it will have funds for 3,000 when in fact the funds will provide for less than 2,000. Senator Zakharov —That cost is average though. Senator Ryan —He does not understand that. Senator TEAGUE —I would like the Minister to demonstrate quite clearly how those students will be distributed between universities, colleges of advanced education and colleges of technical and further education and how, with such distribution, the Government can gain even an average cost that will allow 3,000 students. Until that is set out I, and I believe many commentators independently in educational circles, will distrust the rhetoric in that participation goal. I will turn to some additional offences in the area of schools funding. Perhaps it is a minor point in the context of the whole of the guidelines but, with regard to the registration of new non-government schools, there is a retrospective provision that has been announced in attachment B of the guidelines, which I note the Minister did not refer to in her remarks. It is something that the Government would want to cover up and on which it would not want to allow wider public debate. That is, that for 4 1/2 months retrospectively any new non-government school will suffer lack of guarantee for Commonwealth support. If the Government is to introduce such provisions, why are they not dated 28 July, the date of the Government's statement? Is it not wrong for the Government to announce at the end of July a changed basis for the funding of new registered non-government schools that goes back 4 1/2 months? The new guidelines are to operate from the day of the Australian Labor Party election-the defeat day for non-government schools. What about those non- government schools that have gone through their planning processes, determined with advice from the Schools Commission the kind of funding that they would receive under the guidelines that were then in place and begun their school in March, April, May or June of this year only to find at the end of July that the rules are all changed and backdated to 5 March? I regard that as irresponsible of the Government and I plainly ask the Minister to put to the Government that the date of the operation of those new guidelines be from the date of announcement and not from the date of the last election. Finally, I want to talk about the question of equity. That is another theme in the rhetoric of these guidelines. It has already been noted. It is established now that the ALP Government seeks equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity. It is quite unrepentant in saying: 'Yes, we are going to cut all the tall poppies. We will not be giving help to those who are above the national average or the standard outcome in education provisions. We will just not fund those that exceed our standard resource levels for Government schools'. In fact, these guidelines state that schools that exceed 95 per cent of the standard resources of Government schools will not be funded. Senator Ryan —Those schools all got very substantial grants. They got less than they got last year, not no grant. Senator TEAGUE —I am saying that the Minister's guidelines state that the policies set forth for the coming years will deny Commonwealth support to a school with resource levels that exceed 95 per cent of the standard government school resources. That is set out clearly in these guidelines. I believe that that is a misinterpretation of equity. I do not believe it to be a sound interpretation of equity that we have this lowest common denominator equality of outcomes whereby those schools that have helped themselves and have gained, from fees from participating families in those schools, a higher educational resource are completely denied assistance from the taxpayer, from the Commonwealth Government. I believe that there ought to be a basic grant to all students, be they in government or non-government schools. That is the principle which we established over many years: That all students would gain 20 per cent of the cost of a government school place; that the Government school place would receive, from the taxpayer, 100 per cent funding and a place at a school least in need, because of its high educational resource, would receive a basic grant of 20 per cent of the cost of a government school place. I believe that that is a view of equity which is more defendable than the new concepts of equity which this Government is trying to establish. As a Liberal senator from South Australia, I will continue to urge that there be a basic grant for all students. We have always maintained that there be supplementary needs-based grants for government and non-government schools that will help the educational resources in those schools to be increased, be it by the disadvantaged schools program or by the category 2 and category 3 funding which existed in the past. So I directly question the notion of equity which is one of the themes of these guidelines and reject it as being a lowest common denominator interpretation which is offensive to me and which is not equity at all. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.48) — In the short time available to me I want to comment on the statement made by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) relating to the new educational guidelines for 1984 to the Commonwealth Schools Commission and the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission. Honourable senators will appreciate that, whilst I have had a continuing interest in this subject over a number of years, I quite deliberately have not adpoted a partisan attitude on this matter. However now, for the first time, as a result of these guidelines, regrettably I am forced to the conclusion that these guidelines are the first anti-state aid step by any government for the past two decades. This conclusion coincides with that of the New South Wales Teachers Federation which, in its journal of February 1983, boasted: In addition, refusal to provide funds for wealthy Category 1 schools will provide the first anti-state aid step by any government for the last two decades . Senator Ryan can laugh. She has attempted to disown her Shirley Williams interview. Senator Ryan —I have not attempted to disown it. I have just clarified it. Senator HARRADINE —Incidentally, did she write to the Sydney Morning Herald to disown it? Senator Ryan —Yes. Senator HARRADINE —Did it publish that? Senator Ryan —No. Senator HARRADINE —Would she care to disown the statement from the New South Wales Teachers Federation to which I have just referred? Senator Ryan —I do not speak for the New South Wales Teachers Federation. Senator HARRADINE —The honourable senator does not speak for the Federation but she carries out its ideological program which, incidentally-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Coleman) —Senator Harradine I suggest that you direct your remarks through the Chair and that we have less of this across the chamber conversation. Senator HARRADINE —Thank you, Madam Deputy President. Incidentally, it does not have the support of the vast number of teachers in government schools throughout the length and breadth of Australia. Over many years those parents whose children attend non-government schools have had the privilege of paying twice for the education of their children. They pay once in their taxes and again with school fees and other efforts on behalf of the schools. Yet over the years there has not been educational justice, even under the old nexus system, for parents or non-government schools. The fact is that in 1981-82, 86.8 per cent of the Australian schooling budget was spent on government school children and only 13.2 per cent was spent on students attending non-government schools. Yet only 76.1 per cent of children were in government schools and 23.9 per cent in non-government schools. Clearly, as a result of the type of propaganda and policies adopted by the New South Wales Teachers Federation the trend is to the non-government sector. I will cite the figures to situate my remarks in their true context. Over the years 1972 to 1981 secondary enrolments in non-government schools increased from 24 per cent to 27 per cent of the total. From 1978 to 1981 enrolments in government schools dropped by 55,000 while enrolments in non-government schools rose by 50,000. The nexus principle did at least provide some publicly accountable commitment and guaranteed the return of a fixed portion of taxpayers' money to taxpayers through the school of their choice. The new guidelines tabled today by the Minister directly attack that principle and will undermine the freedom of parents to choose the school best suited for their children. What the Government is now attempting, by a back-handed method, is economic blackmail against the parents in Australia who desire to exercise that right. The Minister has attempted to achieve this by a divide and rule tactic. She has attempted this economic blackmail in ways that will not work, for example, by attempting to set Catholics against Anglicans. I stand here and I say quite frankly to the Government that the overwhelming number of parents of students in Catholic schools will not accept that type of Judas money. We have a situation whereby 41 so-called wealthy schools have been included in the hit list category. I will talk about the so-called wealthy schools and give the Senate an example of one of them. I refer to St Michael's Grammar School in St Kilda. Of its students, 32 per cent come from lower socio-economic backgrounds and 27 per cent from single parent families. Such action by the Minister will not be countenanced in the long run. On page 3 of her statement, the Minister comments: Except in extraordinary circumstances and on the recommendation of the Commission, the Government will not wish to vary decisions on schools affected by this policy in 1984. These guidelines are a direct breach of an election undertaking given just prior to the election by Mr Hurford, who was the shadow Minister for Education. That undertaking was detailed at the time and many persons accepted it. In fact, they considered that there would be a continuation of the nexus, which is essential to ensure that justice in education is done. Persons like the current Minister cannot attempt a divide and rule policy and simply dish out in their own dictatorial manner what they think ought to be the appropriate reimbursement-not of their money-of the taxpayers' money. Senator Grimes —Go and talk to the poor Catholic schools! Senator HARRADINE —I know personally what poor Catholic schools are and what parents want. I am not going to fall for this divide and rule tactic and neither are the parents of Catholic school students. Let us consider the Minister's suggested attempt to improve retention rates. It is obvious that the retention rates in government schools are not up to the standard of those in non- government schools. But what does the Minister, in her guidelines, do to ensure that non-government schools maintain their retention rates? Does she wish to lower their retention rate on the basis of the equality of outcomes thesis to which she adheres in relation to other educational policies? An extraordinary circumstance will arise next year. That extraordinary circumstance will be the Federal election. I suggest that people, and I am one of them, who have not had a high profile on this matter will be stirred into action and will be prepared to take steps to ensure that the clear undertakings given prior to the previous election, the clear indication that there would be a continuance of the nexus grant as an essential component of justice, will be maintained. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I ask: Is it a fact that the Government has seriously underestimated the revenue to be gained from the new excise on fuel oil of 9.027 cents a litre? Is it correct, as reported, that a handful of companies will be paying at least an extra $130m, when the estimate given in the Budget for the total collections from the new excise rates on fuel oil, heating oil and power and lighting kerosene is a maximum of $122m? If there has been an error, what are the correct figures for the total amount to be collected and, if those figures in the Budget are incorrect, can he assure the Senate that the other figures in the Budget are more reliable than the excise estimates? Senator WALSH —The Government made its decision on that matter on the best estimates available to it. Claims have since been made that the revenue will be greater than has been estimated. I have not seen the specific claim to which Senator Chaney referred, that is, that a handful of companies will be paying $ 130m. Claims have been made, however, that the revenue will be greater than has been estimated. The Government is examining those claims and, if necessary, will make a statement in the near future. I am therefore not able at this stage to give precise details. If, however, it is confirmed that the revenue has been underestimated, I stress-this might be difficult for members of the previous Government to comprehend-that it will be an underestimate of revenue, not an overestimate of revenue, which was the more common attribute of rubbery figures presented in Budgets by the previous Government. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question. If the claims are true that this will have a significant impact on resource development industries and on the power generation costs of remote communities in the north and north-west of Australia, and if very much larger amounts of revenue are being collected, will the Government reduce the new imposition of excise on fuel oil? Senator WALSH —In response to the supplementary question on the effects on industry, I say that representations have been received by the Government on this matter. The Government is examining those representations, as it will examine all representations responsibly put to it. If necessary, the Government will make a statement on that aspect of Senator Chaney's question in the near future . Senator JONES —My question is addressed to the Minister for Social Security. Can the Minister provide an estimate of the number of persons presently claiming pension benefits who will be adversely affected by the reintroduction of the assets test? Has the Minister seen the statement from the Leader of the Opposition that the Government's policy on the assets test is a discriminatory attack on those pensioners and other people soon to retire? Senator GRIMES —Senator Jones asked about the number of pensioners presently claiming benefits who will be affected by the assets tests. We cannot be exact about the figure because, as there has been no assessment of assets held by pensioners since 1976, when the assets test was removed, it is difficult to estimate at the moment. Using the figures of people affected at that time, we do know that about 1.5 million pensioners out of about two million pensioners will not have any worries at all because they simply will not be affected. Approximately 170,000 pensioners will in fact be better off. This leaves about 340,000 pensioners who could suffer some drop in income. Most of them will suffer very little drop in income. I am not claiming to be exact in these figures because of the difficulties of assessment. Certainly, all those pensioners who put superannuation payments or the benefits they received on retirement into government bonds or, for instance, Telecom bonds, and who, like most people, declared that income, will in fact be better off because their notional income will be assessed at 10 per cent whereas in fact they will be receiving from 11 1/2 per cent to 12 1/2 per cent or more on that income. The people who will be affected are those who have been encouraged to put their money into all sorts of contrived schemes, shonky investment trusts, and who do not have assessable income even though they, in fact, on any reasonable definition of the term, receive income. If any honourable senators question the burgeoning of those schemes in recent times, I refer them to the advertisements in the financial papers and in papers which have been directed at people with retirement incomes in recent years. The extent of this advertising is an indication of how widespread these operations are. Of course, the previous Government recognised this because at various times it attempted to do something about it. People have been exploiting the system to the disadvantage of pensioners on small fixed incomes, such as weekly superannuation payments, to the detriment of the taxpayers of this community and to the detriment of all pensioners because the capacity of governments to increase the standard rate of pension has been limited by the removal from the system of this amount of money. We hope that, once these people have been detected and once this practice is stopped, pensioners will be advantaged by the increased capacity of the Government to pay reasonable pensions. Of course, one would expect the Leader of the Opposition to behave in the fashion in which he has behaved and to make the sorts of statements that he has made, as Senator Jones quite rightly points out. Most pensioners, as I have said , will not be affected by the change. I remind honourable senators that four previous conservative Ministers for Social Security, between 1961 and 1972, including Mr Sinclair, administered an assets test of the type we are reintroducing because they believed that it was a fair system and because they knew that the removal of the assets component from the means test would result in the sorts of problems we have had in recent years. I note also that Mr Peacock complained that we are introducing uncertainty into the lives of people who are reliant on pensions. I remind honourable senators that Mr Peacock was a member of the Government which, in 1978, having promised to maintain twice-yearly indexation, in fact removed twice-yearly indexation. It was only after pressure from the Opposition at that time and pensioner organisations that that was restored. It was the same Government which, after a firm promise by Mr Fraser in 1977 that it would not touch the over-70s pension, in fact changed the over-70s pension. I suggest to honourable senators that the record of the previous Government as far as treating pensioners with consistency is concerned was not a good one, to say the least. It is unfortunate that, because of statements by the Premier of Queensland and other uninformed or maliciously intending people, the present confusion has arisen. But that confusion is quickly dissipated. I know that most honourable senators opposite are aware of the necessity to introduce an assets element into the pensions means test in order to overcome the very real difficulties which have been recognised by people on both sides of this chamber for the last six years. Senator MESSNER —My question is addressed to the Minister for Social Security. In the light of his reply to the question asked by Senator Jones in which he implied that the amount of revenue to be raised by the introduction of an assets test would be very small, I ask whether the Minister would care to comment on how many additional staff the implementation and administration of the new assets test on pensions will require. What is the estimate of the cost of salaries to be paid to those employees? What is the Government's estimate of the revenue to be saved by the implementation of the new assets test? Senator GRIMES —I immediately point out to Senator Messner, of course, that his statement that I implied that the income derived from this test would in fact be small was not a statement I have made here or a statement I have made elsewhere. Senator Messner —It was the inference from your answer. Senator GRIMES —What I said was that it was very difficult to estimate exactly the amount. As Senator Messner knows, there is a lack of information on this subject because of the simple fact that assets have not been assessed in the last few years. It is estimated by the Department of Social Security that once the test is established-I remind honourable senators that the test will in fact take about a year to be established after legislation is introduced and that will be done only after consultation with members of the Opposition, if they would like to be consulted, and with pensioner organisations and other organisations in the community-a saving of about $200m in a full year is possible. I am certainly not putting any firm estimate on that. What I know and what Senator Messner knows is that the burgeoning of the business in this area-the burgeoning which is exemplified by the proliferation of phoney, contrived schemes-is such that obviously considerable amounts of money are involved. I will leave it to Senator Gietzelt to estimate just what might be involved in the area of veterans' affairs. It is a considerable amount of money which is depriving ordinary pensioners-pensioners who have not been circumventing the system-of receiving adequate pension levels. Governments of all persuasions have not had the capacity to do that. It is depriving the taxpayers of this country-I remind honourable senators that the taxpayers of this country are the people who pay for the pensions-of a fair deal in our social security and taxation system. If Senator Messner were to examine the Budget he would find that it is estimated that to establish the system will take about $35m in the first year. There will be a considerable number of staff needed to carry out the initial assessments. Probably about 1,500 staff or more will be required in the Department of Social Security but that number will decrease once the system is established. If Senator Messner believes that we should not introduce an assets test, unlike his predecessors in the portfolio from that side of the chamber, he should get up in his place and do something which he has not done in government or in opposition, namely, suggest what other methods could be used to overcome what is recognised in this community as a problem not only by the Government but also by the previous Government, by those involved in welfare, by the media and by anyone else who has any knowledge at all of the area. Senator MESSNER —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Leaving the Minister's rhetoric and bluster aside, will he address himself specifically to the question? Can he confirm the report in this morning's Sydney Morning Herald that at least 2,500 employees will be taken into the Department of Social Security and, I take it, the Department of Veterans' Affairs, in order to examine the assets requirements? As the Minister has already stated, no figures are available since 1976. Can he state more clearly exactly what numbers will be required? What will be the salary costs relating to those people? What is his firm estimate of revenue to be collected? Senator GRIMES —The total estimate of expenditure in the next Budget from my recollection is $35m, which includes the whole of the establishment of the assets test. The total estimate of people needed in the first full year of operation, which includes temporary staff, because, as even Senator Messner would understand, we will need a fair number of temporary staff to establish the test, in the Department of Social Security-I will have to check it-initially is about 2,000 staff. Later that number will be reduced considerably. I will get the exact figures for Senator Messner. I have not got those figures at the moment. I said that I do not have a firm estimate of the amount of money which will be saved because one cannot make a firm estimate when one simply does not have the information. If Senator Messner is implying in his question that we should not introduce an assets test, that we should leave the situation as it is now, he should get up and say so. But he will not get up and say so. Rather than get up and nark, he should say what his views are. Senator Messner —You said that you were going to consult the organisations. Senator GRIMES —We have already started consultations. I make another point. The Budget came down the night before last. The newspaper reports of the Budget yesterday had no stories of the type which were stirred up by the unwise and wrong statements of people yesterday, but we became aware by Question Time yesterday that in fact some people were concerned. I sat here through the whole of Question Time thinking that any opposition that was on the ball would ask me a question about this. The Opposition did not. We had to get a question asked from our own side. Senator Chaney —Mr President, I take a point of order. The Minister is clearly debating the question. He is refusing to answer it. I ask that the Standing Orders be drawn to his attention and that he be given an opportunity to put facts before the Senate. Senator GRIMES —Mr President-- The PRESIDENT —I ask Senator Grimes, in answering the question, to bear in mind standing order 100. Senator GRIMES —Mr President, any time anyone answers a question in this place in a slightly aggressive way-- Senator Chaney —I raise a further point of order. Mr President, while you were responding to my point of order the Minister continued to speak. I therefore wish to give you the opportunity to repeat what you said so that he can hear it. The PRESIDENT —I think Senator Grimes did hear what I said. I asked him, in responding to the supplementary question asked by Senator Messner-I point out by way of interpolation that so far there have been only two questions and two supplementary questions from members of the Opposition, and Question Time has been going for about 17 minutes-to bear in mind standing order 100 in the rest of the answer. Senator GRIMES —Thank you, Mr President. As the Opposition clearly does not want to hear any further answer, I will sit down. Senator CHILDS —Can the Minister for Veterans' Affairs give a clear explanation of the assets which will be excluded from the assets and income tests on service pensions provided in the 1983-84 Budget? Senator GIETZELT —There is no question that there is a great deal of confusion about Budget matters as they relate to service pensions. I repeat what Senator Grimes has said: As far as my Department is concerned, the Budget proposals apply only to service pensions. They do not apply, for example, to disability pensions or to totally and permanently incapacitated beneficiaries; they apply only to service pensions. There is probably a lack of understanding about this on the part of the Opposition because statements made by spokesmen from the other side and letters which have appeared in the newspapers indicate that statements I have made at Returned Services League congresses about the abuses taking place in the service pension area have been completely misinterpreted and confusion has followed accordingly. I point out to the Senate, therefore, that a service pension is the age pension paid five years earlier to those who served in a theatre of war. It is just recognition for those who served in such a designation. It represents a five- year earlier payment of the age pension. It means something like $35,000 to service personnel and their spouses. I believe that is an adequate and just recognition of the Government's proposal to pay a pension to those servicemen who are eligible to receive it. On today's values that $35,000 is a quite large sum of money. Service pensioners are also eligible to receive all the fringe benefits which are available. Those benefits vary from State to State. Consequently, $1,000 to $1, 500 in additional benefits is available to those who qualify for a service pension. The assets and income test will apply to people with substantial assets -I am talking about liquid assets. My Department has drawn my attention to the fact that hundreds of people with large superannuation payments of, say, $150, 000 and businessmen who have considerable assets, place their money in non- income earning accounts. They do not receive any income and therefore they can apply for and be awarded a service pension. On receipt of that pension they become eligible for the fringe benefits. I draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that those fringe benefits apply to Telecom Australia charges, water rates, local government rates, travel costs and, in some cases, electricity and other fuel costs. In granting those concessions the authorities are forced to raise charges, which means that the unemployed, who do not receive any of those additional benefits, are consequently subsidising those people who are abusing the current service pension system. Questions on this matter have been asked of the Minister for Social Security. In my Department the growth in expenditure will be something like $600m in the next three years. Whilst I concede that the bulk of the applications for increases in the service pension area will be bona fide and will be accepted by the Department, even within the new arrangements arising out of the Budget, there will be a saving in my Department of in excess of $150m. A very limited number of casual employees will be appointed in the next year to service those applications. Senator CHANEY —My question, which is addressed to the Minister for Resources and Energy, follows the question I asked him earlier. In response he said that the Government used the best estimates available to it in arriving at a figure of about $120m revenue from the new excise on fuel oil and other matters. I ask Senator Walsh: Does his Department publish monthly and annual figures for the sale of petroleum products, including fuel oil? Are not the figures for 1982-83 available to the Government as they are available to the public? Do not those figures show that approximately 4,000 megalitres of fuel oil were sold in Australia last financial year? Even allowing for a further decline in the use of fuel oil, would not the usage of, say, 10 per cent less than that return the Government revenue of, say, $350m in a full year? Therefore, how can he say that the Government has used the best estimates available if he agrees that these figures are available from his Department and they show that substantially larger amounts of revenue will be raised? Senator WALSH —Figures are published. However, within those aggregate figures there are a number of important sub-components. For example, I think that just over 20 per cent of the fuel oil recently sold in Australia will be used for overseas bunkering. Whilst figures may be available, the degree of elasticity in consumption-the price elasticity of demand if honourable senators want a more jargonistic term-cannot be predicted with accuracy. Estimates were made of demand elasticity as a result of price changes. That is one of the factors which was incorporated in the information provided to the Government. As I stated earlier, challenges have been made to the accuracy of those estimates. The Government is examining those challenges and will, if necessary, make a statement in the near future. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Did the figures made available to the Government include an estimate of the loss of use of fuel oil due to companies being driven out of business by this new impost? Senator WALSH —I do not think there is any need to respond to a smart-Alick question like that. Senator COLEMAN —I ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce what the Government has done to honour the commitment made prior to the election regarding increased funding for secondary industry through the Commonwealth Development Bank of Australia and the Australian Industry Development Corporation, particularly in the area of increased grants for industrial research and development. Senator BUTTON —The Budget clearly indicates the Government's positive approach to industry assistance, to which Senator Coleman's question is directed. In replying to specific aspects of her question I will mention three matters. First of all, the Government has freed from Australian Loan Council control, Commonwealth Development Bank and Australian Industry Development Corporation borrowings. It has also agreed to double the gearing ratio of the AIDC and has decided to guarantee its borrowings. It has relaxed restrictions on the use of capital for equity finance and has increased the paid-up capital by 20 per cent by allocating a sum of $12.5m in the Budget, increasing the capital of the AIDC to $75m. It is the Government's belief that these decisions will significantly increase the financial capacity of the Commonwealth Development Bank and the AIDC, in particular, to help industry. Senator Coleman asked about the extension of aid to industrial research and development. May I add that funding for industrial research and development has been increased by over 35 per cent to $71.6m. Significant funding has also been allocated for training programs to improve the skills of the work force and we believe that this, coupled with other announcements in the Budget context, provides a very favourable environment for industry in a period of recovery. Senator CHIPP —I ask whether the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment is aware of the mindless vandalism by groups of morons who pose as self-appointed dam protesters in South West Tasmania. Has their latest act of outrage been the setting on fire and total destruction of a 3,000- year-old huon pine tree? Is the Minister aware that the tree was sited at Warners Landing inside the Wild Rivers National Park, which is protected by federal legislation? Given this vandalism and other outrageous threats by these cretins, such as dynamiting Fraser Cave and given the consenting silence of Mr Gray and his Government, will the Federal Government move quickly to establish a management authority in South West Tasmania to ensure that federal protection is put into effect? Given this continuous threat to wilderness, will the Federal Government, under the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act, gazette the Cradle Mountain-Lake St Clair National Park and the South West National Park, both of which are already included in the World Heritage List, so that they can receive the protection which is so obviously lacking at the moment? Senator RYAN —I share the concern expressed by Senator Chipp in his question. I find it absolutely incomprehensible that people, however critical they are of the decision with regard to the Gordon below Franklin Dam, would express their displeasure in such a totally destructive way. The South West Tasmanian wilderness region is an area which not only all Tasmanians but also all Australians and, indeed, the world, have very good reasons to preserve, to protect and to look after. I can only express my disappointment that the Tasmanian State Government has not seen fit to act in the interests of all Tasmanians and, indeed, all Australians in this matter. With regard to the specific steps that Senator Chipp has suggested that the Federal Government undertake, I will refer those to the responsible Minister, the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, Mr Barry Cohen. I am sure Senator Chipp will be in no doubt, as, indeed, no honourable senators in this place can be in any doubt, of the Federal Government's determination to act according to its responsibilities under the World Heritage Act, just as we have acted to date. We acted very promptly to protect the South West Tasmanian wilderness region by our legislation and that legislation was upheld by the High Court. I can give an assurance that whatever steps are necessary to be taken under federal legislation to protect this area for all time will be taken. Senator McINTOSH —I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate: What is the Government doing in the Budget to meet its election promise to create jobs for unemployed Australians? Senator BUTTON —As Senator McIntosh is probably aware, if he has examined the Budget Speech in some detail, a number of initiatives have been taken in respect of unemployment. The first thing is that, as the Senate is well aware, we have provided additional unemployment relief. A wide range of measures has been put in place. The Government has also introduced the community employment program, something which the previous Government declined to do. That will create a significant number of jobs in the community. Special measures have been taken in respect of particular areas where unemployment is highest; for example, cities such as Wollongong and Whyalla. Senator McIntosh will be aware that the Government is not predicting in any euphoric way an immediate possibility of reducing the number of unemployed. However, the Government is encouraged by present trends in the unemployment figures, particularly present trends in the creation of jobs. It is hoped that in the context of the recovery that process will proceed and accelerate. A number of industry assistance measures which were referred to earlier at Question Time will, it is hoped, assist with that process and the process of industry recovery. The Government is taking a wide variety of measures in an environment in which it is not claiming that a dramatic impact can be made on the reduction of unemployment in the next 12 months. A number of measures in the Budget are addressed to laying the basis for a vast improvement in the employment figures in this country. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE — My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security and relates to the Government's announced assets test on pensions. I ask whether the Minister recalls saying on Budget night: The final details of how the new test will work in practice will be settled after I have consulted with pensioner organisations. If so, why did he make a statement yesterday committing the Government to a position in advance of consultations with pensioner groups, thereby presenting them with a fait accompli? How can the Minister explain the conflict either between him and the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, or between their departments , over the gain to revenue from the introduction of the assets test? Senator GRIMES —I am unaware of the conflict that Senator Crichton-Browne mentioned in the latter part of his question. In relation to the former part of the question, I said in the statement which I produced in this place and I have said since, that we will consult with pensioner organisations about the details- I have since taken action to do so- for instance, on what sorts of modifications of things may be excluded. I have spoken briefly with the representatives of the Australian Democrats. Indeed, I am willing to speak even with members of the Opposition about this matter. We have a couple of months in which to discuss this matter and I will do so. I announced and the Treasurer announced that we were reverting to an assets test of the type that existed before 1976 and that we would have the sorts of exemptions in that assets test that existed then. The aim of this exercise is not to affect the ordinary pensioner; it will not affect the ordinary pensioner. The aim of the exercise is to affect those who have been circumventing the income test and, in fact, going against the intent of the social services legislation in this country. I am aware that every time a change of this type is made to ensure a more adequate redistribution of the wealth in this community and to ensure that people more adequately pay their fair share for the social good of this country, people like Senator Crichton-Browne, as he did in the tax evasion and tax avoidance legislation, oppose that change every time. But some of us in this place happen to believe that it is part of the duty of this Parliament and of this Government to ensure that the ordinary wage earners and workers in this community who go through their lives paying their taxes because they have to do so and because it is their duty to do so, do not suffer. We believe that when they retire and declare their incomes and have that income included in the income test for pension purposes because that is the right thing to do and because they have to do it, they should not suffer at the hands of those who avoid the taxation system and the means testing system of pensions. We will stand by that. We will take steps to ensure that the system is fair, despite the efforts of people like Senator Crichton-Browne. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. I will save my response to that answer for another time. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator Gietzelt, referred to liquid assets only. I ask Senator Grimes: Is that the position? Will the assets test be on liquid assets only? Senator GRIMES —I refer Senator Crichton-Browne to my statement and the statement made by the Treasurer. The problem is, as Senator Crichton-Browne knows, that people manage to place their assets and their wealth in the sorts of asset holdings which, under our system, could not be considered income whereas, under any reasonable definition, they are income. It is those people who do this deliberately to avoid the incomes test at whom we are aiming. I know that Senator Crichton-Browne thinks that is fair enough. I know he thinks it is fair enough in the taxation system. I know he thinks it is fair enough in the social security system. That happens not to be the belief of the Government or the belief of any reasonable thinking person in this community. Senator BOLKUS —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. In view of the Government's decision to introduce an assets test for pensioners and to income test those people over the age of 70, will the Minister explain why the Government has decided not to withdraw the family allowance and dependant tax rebates from well-off families? Senator BUTTON —Senator Bolkus is aware that this question is a lively issue of debate in Australia and was especially so when Senator Chaney was Minister for Social Security, as I recall. Both the family allowances and spouse rebates are forms of assistance which recognise the extra cost of dependants at all income levels. Removing the entitlement from middle and higher income families would effectively mean a tax increase for families with dependants as against single taxpayers and working couples without children. The Government believes that the burden should be shared as equitably as possible. It has therefore decided to make no change to the family allowance or dependant rebates at this stage. Indeed, rather than reduce family assistance for middle and other income families, we have increased assistance for lower income families with children. I do not, perhaps, need to go to the details of those increases; they are available in the Budget context. Senator Chaney —I ask that the Minister table the paper from which he quoted. The PRESIDENT —The paper has been tabled. Senator REID —I direct my question to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. I draw the Minister's attention to page 82 of Budget Paper No. 1 and to the appropriation for government schools in the Australian Capital Territory, which is only 3.8 per cent greater in dollar terms than last year. As this represents a decrease of about 7.5 per cent in the value of the appropriation, will the Minister indicate where reductions will occur in government school provision? In particular, will she indicate how a small high school can be kept open without an additional appropriation for the purpose or will resources have to be diverted from other areas of education? Senator RYAN —The Australian Capital Territory school system has received an overall real increase of $300,000. I have already had discussions with the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority as to how that money can best be spent to overcome defects in Australian Capital Territory schools. The Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority is an independent body which conducts its business under an ordinance of the Australian Capital Territory and it is in the best position to make decisions as to the allocation of that money. I simply repeat that there has been a $300,000 real increase in the amount of money available for the Australian Capital Territory school system and of course the Australian Capital Territory school system will have access to a number of important new programs funded through the Australian Schools Commission, such as the secondary participation and equity program and the computer education program. As well as that, of course, it will continue to have access to other special programs of the Schools Commission. The Australian Capital Territory school system is not just better off than it was last year; it is significantly better off. Not only has it secured a real increase; it also has access to a range of Schools Commission programs which were previously not available to Australian Capital Territory schools. Senator REID —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. How does the Minister reconcile the answer she has just given with the facts disclosed in Budget Paper No. 1? Senator RYAN —I do not think that Senator Reid could have listened to the answer that I gave. I repeat: There is a $300,000 real increase in the amount of money available to Australian Capital Territory schools. If Senator Reid is having trouble reading the Budget Paper, perhaps I can explain it to her later. Senator FOREMAN —My question, which is directed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, concerns the Federal Government's local content plan which applies to passenger motor vehicles and allegations that certain manufacturers are substituting light commercial vehicles for passenger vehicles to escape the local content requirements. Can the Minister confirm that the Customs classification of passenger vehicles as light commercial or four-wheel-drive for tariff purposes is effectively eroding the local content plans to the extent of some 40,000 vehicles per year? If this is the case, how many jobs in the local car industry are being threatened as a direct result of this practice? Is it a fact that a large proportion of these passenger vehicle substitutes lack many of the safety features normally required of passenger motor vehicles under Australian design rules? Does the Government intend to include light commercial vehicles in the 80-20 local content rule as part of its reassessment of future motor vehicle import quota arrangements? Senator BUTTON —The question whether light commercial vehicles should be included in the 80-20 rule in respect of passenger motor vehicles is one to which the Government is giving attention. But it is giving attention to a number of matters in relation to the motor vehicle industry which affect what Senator Foreman described, I think, as the erosion of the local content plans. A number of factors might be said to be eroding local content plans, including transfer pricing, which the Government is examining at the moment, and the penetration of light commercial vehicles. In trying to reach conclusions regarding this matter, the Government has a wide range of interests to consult. In the motor car industry, the interests which have to be consulted are extremely diverse in their views. For example, even within the trade union movement involved in the motor vehicle industry there are very sharp differences of opinion about the light commercial vehicle issue, for example, which was specifically raised in the course of the honourable senator's question. Another specific point which I was asked about in the question related to the safety features of light commercial vehicles which are imported into Australia. That matter is currently being examined by the Commonwealth Government but I think the honourable senator will appreciate that a decision on that safety issue requires the concurrence of the State governments with the Commonwealth Government. In conjunction with the Minister for Transport I am having that issue examined and I believe that there will be some statement on it in the near future. Senator LAJOVIC —Will the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs give a categorical assurance that no poorer non-government schools will be worse off in the future under the socialist Labor Government than they would have been under the formula existing up to now? Government senators interjecting- Senator RYAN —I presume that the honourable senator's question is addressed-- Senator Lajovic —Are you not socialists? Are you ashamed of yourselves? Senator Grimes —If we are democratic socialists, you are national socialists. Senator Chaney —I rise on a point of order, Mr President. The expression ' socialist' is embraced by some members of the Opposition and not by others. But the expression 'national socialist' is not acceptable. I believe that it is an unparliamentary accusation for Senator Grimes to have made to Senator Lajovic. I ask him to withdraw it. The PRESIDENT —If the accusation was made, I ask the Minister to withdraw it. Senator Grimes —Mr President, interjections are disorderly. I merely responded to one with one. If the gentleman is offended by his past, I withdraw. The PRESIDENT —I ask the Minister to withdraw. Senator Grimes —I withdraw, Mr President. Senator RYAN —I understand that the honourable senator's question was whether the poorer non-government schools are better off under the present formula for funding them than they would have been under the percentage link. The answer to that is yes. In the education guidelines we have provided for a 3 per cent real increase for category 3 schools. On the information that I had available to me at the time when I drew up the Budget submission, that was more than would have been available under the percentage link formula. I add that the redistribution which the education guidelines have achieved demonstrates a real concern-I assure the honourable senator that it will be a continuing concern-to improve the standards of the poorer non-government schools . We recognise that there are about 2,200 non-government schools in Australia and about 2,000 of those-the vast majority-are in category 3. We are very supportive of the kinds of education services that those schools provide. They are in the poorer parts of our cities and country areas. By and large they take children from a very wide range of backgrounds. In the inner city areas, for example, Catholic parish schools have a very high percentage of newly arrived migrant children whose parents are very poor and often unemployed. We are very supportive of the work of the category 3 schools and the education that they make available to the poorer section of the community. Of course, they are not only doing it now; they have a long history of contributing such education services in this country. Indeed, I personally have benefited from them. So I think, if the honourable senator is seeking assurances, that I can certainly give an assurance that we intend to continue to make funding arrangements which will allow the category 3 schools-that is, the poorer independent schools in this country-to improve the standard of education that they are able to offer to the children in their care. Senator GILES —My question is directed to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women. In view of some confusion evident in today's Canberra Times, which mistakenly equates 'affirmative action' with 'positive discrimination', can the Minister please explain the policy of the Government and the steps which are being taken towards achieving equal opportunity in both the Public Service and private enterprise? Senator RYAN —The Government is always grateful for newspaper coverage that draws attention to its more progressive policies. However, I must say that I find myself increasingly frustrated by the inability of reporters to distinguish between positive discrimination, which is not the policy of the Government, and affirmative action, which is. The Canberra Times story to which Senator Giles's question refers is to some extent a misrepresentation of the statement I made to that newspaper yesterday. I informed the Canberra Times that the Government is preparing an affirmative action Green Paper-a discussion paper-which will be published shortly and be available for public comment before we proceed to any legislation. However, in the meantime, interim affirmative action can be introduced by administrative arrangements within Public Service departments. I point out, of course, that it is not entirely new in that a policy of equal opportunity has operated within the Commonwealth Public Service for some time. Unfortunately, this policy has not been very effective. I draw the attention of Senator Giles and the Senate to the current employment structure as it affects women within the Commonwealth Public Service. In the First Division, which is the highest division, there are no women. In the Second Division only 2.1 per cent of officers are women. In the Third Division 24.8 per cent of officers are women. In the Fourth Division-the lowest division-49.8 per cent of officers are women. I think that presents a picture of what we call structural discrimination. In order to overcome that one needs positive policies -training opportunities and work experience opportunities-so that the talents and qualifications that reside in female officers within the Commonwealth Public Service can be rewarded by promotion as indeed they are in the case of men. Affirmative action means that there will be an introduction of programs to overcome the hidden and systemic discrimination embedded in apparently neutral Public Service practices and procedures, such as working conditions which are established to suit male life patterns, or selection criteria that can be more easily attained by men. Affirmative action consists of a series of programs and changes so as to counter this type of discrimination. It covers a wide range of activities, from ensuring that selection criteria are directly related to the job to be performed to such measures as ensuring that training sessions are scheduled at times when women can attend them and special career counselling and training for women. They are aimed at ensuring equality of opportunity at the point of selection. I would like to make something very clear. Selection under affirmative action will continue to be on merit. This is, of course, in accord with the provisions of the Public Service Act and is guaranteed by the promotions appeals system. My own Department has begun the formulation of an affirmative action plan. However, all promotions in the Department have been, and will continue to be, on the basis of merit. Senator Chaney —I ask the Minister to table the document from which she has quoted. Senator RYAN —Yes. I am delighted to give you more detail. Senator WATSON —My question is directed to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. Following adjustments to the tertiary education allowances scheme and unemployment benefit levels in the Budget, the gap between the two has widened, causing additional disincentives for further education. I ask the Minister how the widening gap between TEAS allowances and the unemployment benefit will help increase the participation of young Australians in tertiary education. Senator RYAN —The Government has announced a number of measures which will increase participation in tertiary education. One of them was an increase-a modest increase, I admit-in the allowances available under the TEAS scheme. I should point out to the honourable senator, though, that we have not only increased the level of allowances but also liberalised the family means test so that several thousand more students will become eligible for TEAS at the increased level than has been the case up until now. I also draw the honourable senator's attention to the extra $10m which should achieve an increase of 3,000 student places in tertiary education. Perhaps more importantly-this may have escaped the attention of some honourable senators-the secondary allowances scheme for poor families who have children who wish to complete the last two years of secondary schooling has been increased by 20 per cent. Clearly, that will have a direct effect on participation rates in tertiary education. One of the fundamental problems-indeed, I have gone so far as to call it a crisis-in education in this country is that only one-third of young people are completing their secondary education as compared with up to 90 per cent in countries such as Canada, Japan and countries in Western Europe. One of the reasons why so many young people, particularly young people from poorer families , are leaving school before they finish secondary education and thus not qualifying for the next stage of tertiary education is that their families, in this time of extraordinary economic hardship, are unable to support them at school. We have given a higher priority to making a greater increase in the secondary allowances than to making-- Senator Watson —That is not what my question was about. Senator RYAN —There is a connection. I think Senator Watson asked how this was going to achieve increased participation in tertiary education. My answer to that is that there is a range of measures which should enable a higher participation rate in tertiary education. Also, the Government has announced a major overhaul of youth income support schemes, including TEAS, which will start with an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development review in November of youth income and employment training programs. It will be followed by what I believe will be a much more effective development of youth income support, including TEAS, which will lead to drastically increased participation not only in secondary and tertiary education but also in work force training. Senator HEARN —I address my question to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. What is meant by 'assets and income' in relation to service pensioners? What guidelines will the average service pensioner be affected by? Senator GIETZELT —Senator Hearn asked me a question about the guidelines which will determine how the service pension will be affected by the Budget proposals. I indicate, firstly, that the average service pensioner has nothing to fear from the proposals in this Budget, nor has an applicant for a service pension when he or she reaches the age of 60. In fact, the proposed assets and income test- generally, it is referred to as the means test-is very generous. The distortions and anomalies that existed in the 1976 legislation have been removed by this Government. For a start, it will exclude from the valuation of a service pensioner's assets the service pensioner's home or principal place of residence. It does not matter whether its value is $50,000 or $500,000. The Government will exclude from valuation a car which is used by the service pensioner, whether it is a Ford or a Jaguar. We will exclude a pleasure boat, jewellery worn by the service pensioner and a caravan owned by the service pensioner. All personal effects and all works of art will be excluded. I want to make that point clear because questions were asked about liquid assets. None of those possessions to which I have referred will be taken into account in the assets test. After the exclusion of all those assets to which I have referred, married service pensioners can have $28,500 worth of assets before the test starts to apply. That means that they will not lose one cent of their pension unless they have more than $28,500 invested in a bank, a building society, shares or the like. Even people who have very substantial assets above these levels will continue to receive some part of the service pension. In fact, only when married couples have assets-I am talking here of liquid assets-of more than $177,000 will they completely lose their service pension. I hope that explanation to Senator Hearn will satisfy those who have been deliberately misinterpreting the Government's intention and spreading confusion amongst the Australian community. Senator MARTIN —My question is to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women. I refer to a question earlier in Question Time from Senator Bolkus and the answer given by Senator Button on the subject of family allowances and spouse rebates. I refer also to a document tabled by Senator Button after he had finished his answer, at the request of Senator Chaney, which outlined a 'possible question'-which was the question asked by Senator Bolkus- and then 'talking points'. I quote from the 'talking points' section of this document. I believe I will be quoting Senator Button. It states: Family allowances and spouse rebates are primarily tax measures rather than welfare measures. Both forms of assistance recognise the extra cost of dependants at all income levels. I ask the Minister: Given the second part of that statement, that these forms of so-called assistance 'recognise the extra cost of dependants at all income levels' in fact, does the Minister agree that they are welfare measures, albeit welfare measures undertaken through the tax system-in other words, recognition through the tax system of a welfare need; that is, the cost of dependants? Whether or not she agrees with that conclusion, does she not agree that, given that in nearly all cases the family allowance is paid to mothers-Senator Button' s answer departs from the previously accepted criteria for family allowances- they are not welfare measures but are payments to women for mothering? Senator RYAN —Senator Martin's question raises some rather complex matters of economic analysis. The important distinction to discuss is that between direct payments and tax rebates. It is my view, and I think it is the view of anyone who has taken an interest in the welfare system, that the cost to government of paying a direct payment-for example, a family allowance-has the same overall effect on that government's revenue position as the cost of allowing a tax rebate or a tax deduction. Up till now, that same effect has not been widely recognised in public debate on this matter, so we have heard the point of view that family allowances are a burden on the taxpayer and we should start means testing them because they are a direct payment, but tax rebates for various purposes are not a burden on the taxpayer. Of course, that is a false distinction. In the end either a rebate or a family allowance is revenue forgone so far as the Government is concerned. As we are moving towards a more equitable and effective way of assisting people who have dependants, we need to be very clear about that. I think the note to which Senator Martin referred does make the point that both rebates and family allowances amount to revenue forgone. However, I take the point at the conclusion of Senator Martin's question that a very clear advantage of the family allowance payment over the tax rebate as a form of assistance to parents with children is that family allowances are paid directly to the mother. For that reason, the Government strongly supports the family allowance system and ways of strengthening payments to people with dependent children are currently under review. It is certainly our intention to make payments in this area of assistance to those with dependants as direct and as effective as possible, given the fairly complicated welfare and taxation arrangements that we have for doing it. Senator MARTIN —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Given that Senator Ryan said that a direct payment has the same effect as a tax rebate, is she therefore saying that a spouse rebate is a payment to a husband for having a dependent wife? How does that square with Senator Button's statement in his answer that the Government believes that the burden of dependants should be shared equitably? Senator RYAN —I think it does square with Senator Button's statement. When I said that the payment of a family allowance has the same effect as the provision of a tax rebate, I meant the same effect on revenue. Obviously it does not necessarily have the same effect on the recipients of those benefits. What we can be clear about with regard to the family allowance is that it is paid directly to the person, most often the mother, with the care of the children. Of course governments cannot interfere with what happens within family budgets and so I suppose we do not know, in the case of individual families, who in effect is the direct recipient of the dependent spouse rebate. So I would not quibble with Senator Martin that the effects may be different as far as individual families are concerned, but I simply repeat that the Government accepts that having dependants is an economic burden and that there should be some recognition of this in the way in which we distribute welfare and taxation benefits. The PRESIDENT —Yesterday Senator Jessop asked a question concerning the possibility of electronic surveillance of senators' offices and Senate committee rooms. I am advised by the Parliamentary Security Controller that, because of the very wide range of eavesdropping devices which are presently available, the only areas which can ever be considered to be free from such electronic surveillance are those which are inspected regularly by experts, are fitted with adequate security countermeasures and are under constant supervision. Where any honourable senator has a genuine concern I can arrange, through the Security Controller, for the necessary physical and electronic inspection of that senator's office or any committee room. But I re-emphasise the advice tendered to me that any protection beyond the period during which the inspection takes place would require that the area be constantly under the supervision of either the senator and his or her staff or the parliamentary security force. This degree of supervision could not be provided from the resources presently available. Report The PRESIDENT —In accordance with the provisions of section 81 of the Reserve Bank Act 1959, I present the report of the Board of the Reserve Bank of Australia on the operations of the bank, together with financial statements and the report of the Auditor-General for the financial year 1982-83. Sitting suspended from 1.07 to 2.15 p.m. Ministerial Statement Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security) —by leave-In the past, members of parliament and the public have become aware of what the government's legislation program in any period of sittings is only when Bills are introduced. The Governor-General's Speech only provides a general guide to intentions over the entire period of the Parliament. The Government has decided that this is not a proper way to treat the Parliament or the public. We have no reason to hide what our priorities are and every reason to be proud of our intentions and achievements. Moreover, if members and senators have the opportunity early in the sittings to see what the parliamentary program is going to be like they can more easily plan ahead their own priorities and recognise the work load that is ahead of them. To the best of our knowledge this is the first time a Commonwealth government has informed the Parliament of its detailed intentions. These will be the first full length sittings since the Government was elected and it provides the first opportunity to embark on a full range of economic and social reforms, to put our commitments into effect and to cope with problems we find before us-not, of course, that we have wasted any opportunities up to now. During the short autumn sittings we passed legislation to establish the community employment program, a demonstration of our first priority-to put Australia back to work. We also took the opportunity to institute a number of priority welfare and taxation reforms, to protect the South West Tasmanian Wilderness and to establish the Economic Planning Advisory Council and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Legislation was introduced in fulfilment of major constitutional and legal reform priorities and debate is being resumed on those matters early in these sittings. I should like now to outline briefly the Government's legislation program in the period of sittings ahead. Economic and Industrial Development The Government will introduce legislation which is proposed for passage in the sittings to: Implement the recent decisions on the steel industry; give the Australian Industry Development Corporation a greater role in financing industry in Australia; implement various bounty decisions announced recently; reform the operation of various primary industry assistance and inspection arrangements, particularly in the dairy products and meat areas, and implement existing export inspection cost recovery policy; implement decisions on a review of the industrial research and development incentive scheme; and enable the period for which temporary assistance may be granted to an industry to be extended. Depending on resources, it is hoped that legislation will also be introduced affecting the regulatory environment within which business operates; that is, amendments to the Insurance Act and the Life Insurance Act to improve financial standards, for passage; new legislation governing cheques and bills of exchange; and companies and securities legislation to revise the co-operative scheme in the light of experience and to implement decisions on a centralised scrip and accounting system and the futures industry. Consumer Protection Legislation will be introduced to establish the Prices Surveillance Authority. Other consumer affairs legislation is also under consideration. Industrial Relations A Bill amending the Conciliation and Arbitration Act to implement reforms already announced, including in relation to a complementary Commonwealth-State industrial relations system, will be introduced for passage. In addition, legislation to give effect to our commitments in the public sector industrial area will be developed and introduced if time permits. Welfare and Community Development Major pieces of legislation in the area of welfare and community development for introduction and passage will include: Bills to establish Medicare and to implement other Budget health decisions and other measures in the health area; Bills to establish the new first home ownership assistance scheme and legislation associated with the Government's decision to retain the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation; a package of education Bills implementing our decisions on schools and tertiary funding and making technical changes to the student assistance legislation; and major social security and repatriation Bills largely to implement Budget decisions. Electoral Matters Bills to implement our decisions on electoral reform, following the Joint Select Committee report, will be introduced later in the sittings. Constitutional and Law Reform As foreshadowed by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), the Government plans to put referendum Bills through the Parliament to enable a referendum in February 1984. In addition, we propose that the family law, freedom of information, archives, ombudsman and sex discrimination Bills introduced last sitting will proceed. New legislation implementing various priority law reform commitments will include: Legislation to establish an independent director of public prosecutions; following the recent conference in the Senate chamber, revised proposals in relation to investigating organised crime; a revision to the Family Law Act in relation to legal aid costs, as announced in the Budget; legislation to provide for a new scheme for transfer of prisoners between States ; and legislation to implement aspects of the Australian Law Reform Commission's report on lands acquisition and compensation, which will be for inroduction only . If time permits major human rights legislation also will be introduced, as will a new criminal investigation Bill. Depending on the progress of discussions with the States, an 'Australia Bill' will be introduced to end the residual colonial links with Britain. A uniform defamation Bill will be introduced as an 'exposure draft' to enable public comment. The customary Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill will also be put forward in due course. Migration and Citizenship The Migration Amendment Bill which is already before the Parliament will be taken further and citizenship legislation will be introduced to remove anomalous and discriminatory provisions. Financial Measures In addition to the appropriation Bills and taxation Bills introduced on Budget night, we will be introducing, for passage, normal States grants legislation and further income tax legislation to implement decisions from the Budget and the May statement, including in relation to superannuation and tax avoidance initiatives. Other Bills for passage will be introduced to implement Budget revenue decisions relating to broadcasting and television licence fees, customs and excise tariffs, and Budget decisions on the petroleum freight subsidy. External Relations Bills will be introduced for passage to fulfil our commitment to further Australia's contribution to the International Development Association, the Asian Development Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Legislation to implement the proposed Torres Strait treaty may also be ready for introduction. An Income Tax (International Agreements) Bill will be put forward to implement various agreements signed recently. Other Measures Other measures proposed for passage include: New radio communications legislation; amendments to enable the interstate commission to commence operations; and amendments to the Public Service Act to enable the operation of the community employment program in the Commonwealth Public Service. Other legislation which may be introduced and proceeded with if time permits includes: Bills to improve the operations of the Australian National Line and Australian National Railways; legislation to restore the courier service of Australia Post and to make other amendments in the postal law; and a Bill to implement, through an amendment to the Patents Act, our accession to the Budapest treaty. Senator Chipp —What are we having for Christmas dinner? Senator GRIMES —You will have plenty of Christmas dinner, Senator. A Liquid Fuels Emergency Bill, which may be needed, will be introduced also. During the three weeks of sitting in September, the Government anticipates a fairly heavy legislative program focusing in particular on implementing Budget measures. Apart from the Bills already before the Senate and the House, legislation that is likely to be introduced and, depending on the time available , debated during September includes: The housing and health packages, including Medicare; the Prices Surveillance Authority Bill, Budget social security and repatriation measures-apart from assets testing, which is likely to come forward later in the sittings; Bills making contributions to various international organisations; radio communications; international income tax agreements; miscellaneous amendments to companies and securities, and meat inspection arrangements. We are nothing if not optimistic. Obviously, the availability of this legislation, much of which is complex, depends on the resources of departments and parliamentary counsel, and the normal clearance process through government. Most of the Bills will start in the House and some may not come to us until October. But I thought it right to give honourable senators advance notice of the sort of program that will be facing us in the next month. Of course, as always seems to be the case, unforeseen circumstances may give rise to additional legislation, and pressure of the draftsman and other people's time may not enable all matters to come forward as soon as we would like. But what I have outlined is a major program for the Parliament, consistent with the Government's objectives of restoring balance to the economy and establishing the basis for sustained economic growth, as well as implementing priority social and institutional reforms. I commend the Government 's program to the Senate and look forward to the co-operation of honourable senators in achieving our program. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-I start by making a short personal explanation. Yesterday I accused the Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Chipp, of not having read his Shakespeare and of having forgotten the expression 'put not your faith in princes'. In fact, I made the wrong accusation. I should have accused Senator Chipp of forgetting the Psalms, which is where the expression arises. I withdraw the allegation that he has forgotten his Shakespeare and instead will allege that both he and I have forgotten our Psalms. Senator Chipp —That was not the part that offended me. I was offended at the fact that you called Senator Walsh a prince. Senator CHANEY —The other varieties of the royal family I think would have been even more offensive. In any event, I welcome the fact that the Government has made a statement of its legislative program. I think it is of assistance to the Government itself and to the Opposition to have an indication of the very substantial program which the Government hopes to achieve during its first Budget session. As Senator Grimes has said, I think it is the first time that a government has informed the Parliament of its detailed intentions in this way and I see it as a positive step forward in the management of the Parliament. However, I dispute his first statement that in the past the Parliament and the public have become aware of the Government's legislative program only when Bills are introduced. In fact, first under the leadership of, I think, Senator Withers and subsequently under the leadership of Senator Sir John Carrick the practice developed of providing at least a week's notice of the Bills that were proposed to be dealt with. Towards the end of the session more detailed provisions were put forward. I believe the Government has made an advance on past practice and I acknowledge that and believe it is of value. However, I regret to advise the Senate that I am reminded of another bit of Shakespeare-this I can say is Shakespeare. Senator Grimes —Because you have checked it? Senator CHANEY —I have not checked it but I remember some of my school mates reciting it in my presence. On looking through this list I am reminded of the words: 'With eager feeding food doth choke the feeder'. I believe that the Senate and indeed the Parliament is being set a well-nigh impossible task to deal with the program which is put forward. I say that at this stage because it would not be the wish of the Opposition to obstruct the sensible obtaining of a program. In the short time that the Government has been in power the Opposition has tried to behave in a very reasonable way in meeting the Government's legislative requirements, and that I undertake to continue, Mr Deputy President. But I think the range and scope of some of the measures foreshadowed will in fact make it very difficult for the Government and for the Opposition to get across all issues. I note the very ambitious program of Constitution and law reform. I wish the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) well in introducing all the Bills he is proposing to introduce but I put on the record now my doubts that the program is one which we could obtain without quite unseemly haste and without using the gag and guillotine-which I am sure is not the Government's intention or the wish of the Senate. I hope that the Government will continue the practice we have followed over recent years by trying to give us a good week's notice of what is proposed in any particular week. I have certainly found that a useful tool both in government and in opposition, and I think it has facilitated the work of the Senate. I thank the Government for giving us the advice which it has in the statement. I hope it will continue that ancillary practice and that it will not regard the attainment of this program as the ultimate test of its success as a government. If it does I think it will be out of government by Christmas. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats) —by leave-I join with Senator Chaney in complimenting the Government on the courtesy it is paying to the Senate; the long term indicative planning that it is showing with regard to the leglislative program. The Australian Democrats appreciate this gesture of courtesy and also this contribution towards the smooth running of the Senate. I take the opportunity or reminding the Government that to this point the Liberal Party of Australia and the rest of the Opposition have been most co-operative in the running of this House. I think the amount of time devoted to Government Business has been the same, if not more, than normal. There can be no accusation that the Liberal Party, the National Party of Australia, the Democrats and Senator Harradine have been wasting time. I hope that spirit of co-operation will continue. I have taken the trouble of writing to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and sending a copy to the former Special Minister of State and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Chaney), stating the Democrats' concern about this matter. During the last session in May-it is agreed that it was an exceptional session-several contentious Bills were brought down or debated in the last week or two. I remind you, sir, that that happened after the House of Representatives had risen 'for the recess'. Those are the words of the Government, not ours. The Liberal Party, Senator Harradine and the Democrats quite properly had some responsible amendments to certain contentious legislation. It was inferred by the Government, suggested or even said quite openly to us: 'If you amend this legislation you will either hold it up until August or it will be on your head that you bring back the House of Representatives'. Any senator, any Senate party, is reluctant to 'bring back the House of Representatives' because the accusation from the Press Gallery would be : 'Democrats cause a million dollars extra cost by bringing back the Representatives' or 'Liberals cause extra expenditure' or whatever. So we are reluctant to do that. My colleagues and I and, I am sure, Senator Harradine were co-operative to the extent that we did not push amendments that we wanted to push-they were not fundamental amendments but they would have improved the legislation-because we had that sword hanging over our heads. I say quite clearly-it is not meant to be a threat, Mr Deputy President, it is a simple statement of fact-that I do not care, frankly, when the House of Representatives rises this Budget session. But the Democrats will not be the slightest bit reluctant in seeking the co- operation of the Liberal Party, the National Party and Senator Harradine in moving amendments to legislation that we believe are necessary and proper even if the House of Representatives has risen for the Christmas holidays. I think I have the authority of Senator Chaney and Senator Harradine to say that they are sympathetic with the point of view I am putting. The Government will lift the House of Representatives if it wishes, but it should not think that once it has risen every piece of legislation that comes into the Senate is non-amendable for that reason. I do not say this in criticism of the Government. It had a problem last session. I received a very courteous reply from the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, stating that he sympathises with our position and that it will be a matter for discussion between the party leaders in this place and Senator Harradine. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —by leave-I associate myself with the remarks made by Senator Chaney and in particular I concur with the remarks made by the Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Chipp. It is heartening and refreshing to hear those comments. Frankly, it is about time that they were made in this chamber. As Senator Chipp did not make them in the sense of any threat, I simply say that our rights as senators, as representatives of the people who elected us , should not effectively be taken away simply to meet the convenience of members of the House of Representatives. General Business taking precedence of Government Business- Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(2.36) —I move: That the Senate requests the Australian Government to convey to the Government of the USSR its deep concern at the repeated harassment of the 'Ukrainian Public Group to Promote the Implementation of the Helsinki Accords'. On 1 August 1975, 35 countries signed the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe which has been described as the Helsinki Accords. The signatories were the heads of governments of 35 European countries including the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United States of America and Canada. The alleged achievements of the signing of the Accords were that the Soviet Union gained recognition of post-World War II boundaries in Europe and, in return, the West gained Soviet acceptance of provisions guaranteeing basic human rights and freedom and the rights of national groups to self-determination . Apart from these exclusive guarantees of human rights, provision was made for the monitoring and review of compliance with the guarantees in the Accords. In response to this, various groups were formed throughout the USSR, in the Ukraine , Lithuania, Georgia and Armenia, and indeed in Moscow itself. The principal aim of these groups was to ensure that the implementation of the Helsinki Accords was in fact honoured. On 9 November 1976 the Ukrainian Public Group to Promote the Implementation of the Helsinki Accords, the body with which this motion is concerned, was founded in Kiev with 10 founding members. All of those 10 founding members were acquainted with Soviet understanding of human rights to the extent that between them they had spent a total of 63 years in different Soviet prisons, concentration camps, psychiatric institutions and hospitals. Despite this, the Group constituted itself openly and publicly announced its membership, aims, demands and principles, thus becoming a public focal point for Ukrainians previously united by personal ties, suffering and common goals. The Group was fully aware that the Helsinki Accords did not in fact represent a document superior to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other similar international pacts. However, it was the most recent humanitarian document of a legal nature at that time containing provisions that stood to be taken as binding. Therefore, the Group was determined, according to its founding document , to: Inform the governments of the participating states and world community of violation in Ukraine of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the humanitarian provisions of the Helsinki Accords. Furthermore, the document stated: We realise that according to the treaty of December 27 1922, forming the Soviet Union, all international agreements, signed by the government of the Soviet Union, also encompass Ukraine. It follows therefore, that the Declaration of Human Rights as well as the Declaration of Principles, on which the signatory nations of the Helsinki Conference are to base their relations, are in effect also in Ukraine. At the same time the Group realised that the signing of the Helsinki Accords had recognised the Soviet post-war boundaries in return for what it considered to be insincere promises on human rights by the Soviet Union. That the Group was correct has been clearly illustrated by the harassment that it has endured from its formation to the present day. Of the original 10 members, all but two have been arrested on charges of anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda and forced to serve long sentences in Soviet prison camps, followed by years in exile. It was Soviet intolerance of the Group's activities as a body, acting in accordance with the Helsinki Accords as monitors of Soviet compliance with guarantees on human rights, which led to their incarceration. Documents sent to the Soviet- controlled Ukraine Government proposing that the Ukrainian Helsinki Group be recognised were officially ignored. The only response received was repeated harassment of members followed by imprisonment, exile and banishment. By 1980, of 37 members of the Group, 25 were imprisoned, one had committed suicide, six had been banished, two were in exile and one was in a psychiatric hospital. I do not know whether honourable senators saw the Four Corners program about the treatment of the political inmates of psychiatric hospitals in the Soviet Union. If not, it is well worth having a look at the program. If any honourable senator wants a copy of the transcript that, too, is available from the Library. The statistics that I have just mentioned do not take into account the regular visits by KGB officers to the members' homes, the continued interrogation and other forms of harassment. Undoubtedly the fate of the 10 founding members was intended to deter other human rights activists from joining the Group. The courage of those who disregarded these obvious harassments and continued in the same vein as the founding members indicates the extent to which man is prepared to fight for basic human rights. The death of six million Ukrainians in the artificial famine of 1932-33, the continued suppression of the facts surrounding that famine, the Russification of Ukrainian institutions, the suppression of dominant religious groups such as the Ukrainian Catholic Church and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, and the fact that 50 per cent of political prisoners in the Soviet Union are Ukrainian are evidence of the sufferings of the Ukrainian people under their Soviet controlled Government. Two of the members of the Ukrainian Helsinki Group are of special interest to Ukrainian Australians as both have relatives in Australia. One, Oskana Meshko, has spent eight years in psychiatric hospitals, has spent terms in labour camps and, at the age of 77, is serving a term of five years exile in the Khabarovsk Krai. The other, Yuri Shukhevych, was arrested in 1948 at the age of 14, his crime being that he was the son of a general of the Ukrainian partisan army which opposed occupation of the Ukraine by both the Third Reich and the Soviets. Having served 10 years, he was arrested again for failing to denounce his father and in 1972 he was sentenced to a further 14 years for anti- Soviet propaganda. In other words, he has spent all those years since the age of 14 incarcerated by the Soviet Union. Still in prison 35 years later and now blind, this man who has relatives in Australia, epitomises the suffering and tragedy of the Ukrainian nation and the ideals that led to the formation of the Ukrainian Helsinki Group. Much public attention has been drawn to the treatment of Yuri Orlov of the Moscow branch of the Helsinki Accords Group. His treatment led Valentin Turkin, Chairman of the Amnesty International Moscow Group, to say: I am ashamed of a country in which such people as Yuri Orlov and other members of the Helsinki Watch Groups can be put behind bars. Mr Deputy President, whilst not undermining the importance of this comment, one very important point should be emphasised: The West has no diplomatic representation in Kiev apart from the consulate of the United States of America which is prevented from functioning with any effect. Therefore, unlike its Moscow counterparts, the Ukrainian Helsinki Group receives little or no public pressure in its favour from foreign nations. In response to this, last year President Reagan announced that 9 November, the sixth anniversary of the foundation of the Ukrainian Helsinki Group, would be a day of tribute to it, commenting: The long prison terms meted out to members of the Ukrainian Helsinki Monitoring Group for their courageous activities to secure greater freedom in the Ukraine are graphic testimony to the inability to communism to compete with the principles of freedom in the market-place of ideas. The flagrant persecution and imprisonment of Ukrainian citizens for their attempts to exercise basic human rights is an International embarrassment to the Soviet Union and proof that the Soviet Union has failed to live up to its pledges to honour the understandings embodied in the Helsinki Accords. Mr Deputy President, we in this Senate chamber have always regarded ourselves as having a particular function of protecting the rights of individuals, particularly those who do not have a say in other spheres. Members of the Ukrainian Public Group to Promote the Implementation of the Helsinki Accords have suffered because they are attempting to monitor the implementation of the agreement that was reached at Helsinki. The evidence is clear that that agreement is regarded by the Soviet Union as a scrap of paper when it comes to the responsibilities that is is required to bear as a result of it. Instead, the Soviet Union incarcerates the very people who, by virtue of that agreement, have formed themselves into groups to see that the agreement is honoured. We in this Senate should therefore take this opportunity, not only on behalf of the Group as a whole but also in particular on behalf of those members of the Group who have relatives in Australia, to adopt the motion and convey to the Government of the USSR our deep concern at the repeated harassment of the Ukrainian Public Group to Promote the Implementation of the Helsinki Accords. I commend the motion to the Senate. Senator LAJOVIC —(New South Wales) (2.59)-I rise to firmly support Senator Harradine's motion which requests this Government to convey to the Govenment of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics its deep concern at the repeated harassment of the Ukrainian Public Group to Promote the Implementation of the Helsinki Accords. Senator Harradine has explained to the Senate the history of the Helsinki Accords, the expectation of all of the humanitarian civil population of the Western world that the Soviet Union will change or at least try to change its policy on human rights, a policy which really does not exist at all except in its constitution. But the constitution is a written book and is not necessarily to be adhered to. Senator Harradine has explained to us how the Ukrainian Group has been singled out as the most persecuted group. Members of the Group have been imprisoned. Some of them have committed suicide and some are still in psychiatric hospitals. Last night we heard Senator Coleman reading to us a letter from a prisoner in the Philippines describing the life in prison there. I was deeply moved by it, as I am sure all honourable senators were. But that is one person and a person who was able to get the message to the world. The interesting fact was that the letter was allowed to be sent out to the groups of Amnesty International. But what I was amazed at were the conditions in that prison which the fellow described. He mentioned not once, but twice, that they have liturgical sessions. That means, I suppose, masses or observation of Sundays and all the rest; that they have a guitar; that they have had tape recorders and so on. But the conditions in that kind of prison and the prisons in which the Ukrainians and any one in the Soviet Union who is described by its laws as an anti-social parasite are imprisoned is quite different. Solzhenitsyn told us all about that. There are no guitars in Soviet prisons, there are no tape recorders so that prisoners can listen to music, there are no family reunions every Sunday to pray together. There is nothing like that at all and there are no letters which we can read from those people who are imprisoned in the Soviet Union because, first , they are not allowed to write them and, second, they are not allowed to be mailed outside. I do not intend to say that I am condoning the Philippines for the treatment of its political prisoners. I should like to say only that when we hear a description of a prison there and then compare it with descriptions of other prisons such as Solzhenitsyn has described in his Gulag books, then we realise what is happening under socialist and communist regimes, and not only there but also under other regimes. As Senator Harradine mentioned, Ukrainians have been singled out in their persecution, and they were singled out for one purpose. They are one of the largest national groups in the Soviet Union. They have, strangely enough, representation at the United Nations, together with Byelorussia, but that does not mean that we have a Ukrainian ambassador in Canberra. The Helsinki Accords were the great hope of all humanitarians. It was hoped that the Soviet Union would relent in its oppression of anyone who even dared to criticise in a small way the system of the Soviet Union Government today. It is strange that all of those who believed in the Helsinki Accords have seen that nothing has changed in the Soviet Union in regard to human rights. In relation to the Helsinki Accords Solzhenitsyn said that they represented the final solution of World War II, the absolute crystallisation of a divided Europe , the transformation of the Iron Curtain into a Steel Girder. He went on: The fact is that the Helsinki agreement was viewed by the President of the United States as a new opportunity for humanitarianism, and by the Premier of the Soviet Union as a final termination of all Western interference in East European affairs. These are the facts which are more real today than ever before. If we hear today that the Soviet Union does not have Stalin any more therefore it is much more human, let me remind honourable senators that it was not only Stalin who was the total dictator. There were others after him and others are still coming. The communist system will never change, regardless of who is in power. I conclude my remarks with a plea by way of another quote from Solzhenitsyn. He said: The Communist leaders say, 'Don't interfere in our internal affairs. Let us strangle our citizens in peace and quiet'. But I tell you: Interfere more and more. Interfere as much as you can. We beg you to come and interfere. We can see and we have seen from many examples how Western world media and pleas from concerned people were able to alleviate or even free some of the so-called dissidents in the Soviet Union. I therefore fully endorse and support Senator Harradine's motion. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(3.03) —The Government does not oppose the passage of this motion. Indeed, the substance of it is consistent both with our own attitudes as a democratic socialist party and our own actions in Government. The Soviet Government can be in no doubt regarding the intensity of feeling in Australia about continuing human rights violations in the Soviet Union. The Government deplores the very poor human rights record of the Soviet authorities. We are aware that Ukrainian dissidents in particular, the subject of this motion, have suffered very severely and they represent a disproportionately large group of those sentenced in the Soviet Union to terms of imprisonment for what would in the Western world be regarded as political crimes. We are also aware that the various groups which were formed to monitor the Soviet Union's obligations under the human rights provisions under the Helsinki Final Act which was signed in 1975 have been systematically subjected to harassment, arrest, and imprisonment. Faced with such unremitting pressure, the few remaining members of the Moscow-based Helsinki watch group announced in September 1982, as has been said in this debate, that the group was forced to disband. The Australian Embassy in Moscow has instructions to monitor closely developments in the human rights area and to keep the Government informed on a regular basis. It is an unfortunate fact that the provisions of the Soviet penal code, in particular those relating to so-called anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda, are formulated in such a way as to allow the conviction and sentencing of individuals such as those participating in the Helsinki watch groups. Official representations on behalf of such individuals or groups thus invariably are met with the argument, that Senator Lajovic mentioned, that their treatment is in accordance with Soviet law, that it is an internal affair of the Soviet Union and that Australia has no standing in the matter. Together with other Western nations, however, Australia will continue to urge the Soviet Union to abide by the human rights principles embodied in the United Nations Charter and the Helsinki Final Act. If information coming to our attention indicates that further action on our part may be warranted, we will give very careful consideration to what steps might be usefully taken in that respect. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(3.05) —I briefly join in the debate to support Senator Harradine's motion and to commend him on his initiative in bringing it before the Parliament. I commend also the statement that has just been made by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). What has been said needs to be said very often. The important thing is that what is being done in the Soviet Union- in other countries as well, of course, but particularly in the Soviet Union-will not flourish if constantly exposed to the light of day and if people keep telling the Soviet Union that this conduct is not in accord with its undertakings, with its signature to the Helsinki Accords and earlier covenants with the United Nations. As members of the Amnesty International parliamentary group we are conscious of the particular brutality which the Soviet has shown to many prisoners, particularly in the areas of psychiatry. We realise that it is not just in the Ukrainian case that the Soviet Union adopts this attitude but also in many others. I was in the Soviet Union visiting the Moscow group of Amnesty International which, of course, can no longer operate because nearly all its members are in prison. Fortunately, its president is not in prison. He was expelled from the country with his family. He has gone from being an unemployed man, a mathematician of considerable ability, to a man with a high position in New York where his talents are recognised. But he, like others, still suffered. When I was in the Soviet Union it was constantly put to me by the people who are trying to uphold the Helsinki rights and to bring them to the notice of those powers that the spotlight-that is a word they constantly used-must be turned on to the Soviet Union, that with campaigns something might be done. In 1976 I had the pleasure of bringing the latest report from Moscow and making it available to the Helsinki powers. I regret that very little was done with it by the 35 Helsinki powers. The same point was made by another group. Recently there have been vigils throughout Australia on behalf of the Jewish people, the refusniks and others who want to leave the Soviet Union. Two or three years ago 50,000 were leaving; this year between 1,000 and 2,000 will be allowed to leave, although hundreds of thousands more are qualified to leave. The people left in the Soviet Union wanting to leave have said: 'Make a lot of noise. Keep making a lot of noise. That is something which will stir them'. We heard Senator Lajovic make reference to Solzhenitsyn and his remark: 'interfere and keep interfering'. It is always the same message of what must be done in this community. I remind the Senate of the report-it may have already been mentioned in debate- of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence entitled 'Human Rights in the Soviet Union'. That Committee undertook a thorough investigation just a few years ago and presented its report, I think in 1980. One of its recommendations was: It is recommended that the Australian Government make every use of appropriate opportunities to: (a) give full support for the principles contained in the Final Act of the Helsinki Agreement; (b) join other democracies in protesting against the repression of Soviet citizens who are monitoring the extent of the USSR's compliance with the Helsinki Agreement; and (c) seek the release from Soviet prisons and labour colonies of those Soviet citizens who have been imprisoned merely because of their Helsinki ''watch group '' activities. This is doubly important to those people in the Ukrainian community who have suffered. There have been in some ways particularly vengeful activities against the Ukrainian people, who have suffered considerably in the last 60 years or so. One must remember that in the Soviet Union the Russian majority is superior. The other minorities are now becoming the majority people and there is a Russian dominance which they are determined to maintain. Bigger groups like the Ukrainians seem to stand in the road of that, so they have suffered more than their fair share, if one can use those words, of the repressions which have taken place over the last 60 years. I trust that the Government will keep taking every opportunity to draw attention to the repressions which in this motion refer particularly to the Ukrainian people and to those who are valiant in the support of human rights- people like Anatoly Shcharansky who is in prison, who is ill, and on whose behalf people have made representations. There are many such people in this situation. I know that when they learn that motions such as this are brought forward and that other democracies are showing an interest in their plight it will greatly improve their morale. Such knowledge helps them to fight on in terrible circumstances. From this point of view, I think that a motion such as that which has been moved is one which deserves every support. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(3.11) —I want to speak briefly in this debate , which is an important one. I congratulate Senator Harradine in bringing it forward for the attention of the Senate. Obviously, it has unanimous support in this place. On behalf of the Opposition, I certainly add my voice to that support. The motion states: That the Senate requests the Australian Government to convey to the Government of the USSR its deep concern at the repeated harassment of the 'Ukrainian Public Group to Promote the Implementation of the Helsinki Accords'. Senator Evans indicated that the Government is not opposed to that motion and that it accepts the need to press the Soviet Union from time to time in regard to the obvious breaches and violations of human rights in that country. They are well documented and well known and not a subject on which there needs to be any debate in this chamber. I would also like to support the remarks Senator Missen made in emphasising the need to keep repeating our disapproval. There may be a tendency for the members of the Department of Foreign Affairs to feel that if there are too many protests they will not be listened to, but I think it is important that Australia, as Senator Missen advocated, continually press these matters. When it is well documented that there are gross violations to human rights such as those which Senator Harradine has shown occur in regard to the particular group in the Ukraine, I believe Australian intervention is called for . I understand that this group has been one of the most active and effective and is one of the best known, if not the best known, of the groups in the Soviet Union which have been set up to monitor the observance of the Helsinki agreement of 1975. That agreement was a landmark in this field, but it called for dramatic Soviet initiatives to ensure the observance of human rights in the Soviet Union. We know that the Soviet Union has not observed the responsibilities which it adopted when it entered into that pact. Since 1980 the same body on security and co-operation in Europe as that which met at Helsinki and entered into those Accords has been in continuous conference in Madrid. Even though it has met again and reaffirmed the principles, the Soviet Union, although it formally adheres to those principles, does not really observe them. There has been quite a lot of material, particularly from Amnesty International , in relation to this matter. The types of harassment to which these people are being subjected have been documented. Senator Harradine has mentioned some of them. I do not propose to repeat them all, but obviously they include trials in secret, when people are just assigned their lawyer and even human rights of the most minimal kind are not observed. In addition to that, there has been a constant policy of harassment of members of these groups even though they have not all been brought to trial and sentenced to long periods in detention. In many cases, of course, people are detained in psychiatric hospitals on the grounds that they suffer from schizophrenia because they do not agree with the policies of the Soviet Union or that they are anti-Soviet in some way in the eyes of the Soviet Union itself or the Soviet legal system. This is a matter of real concern. It is pleasing that the Government has agreed to support the motion. I hope it will give effect to it as soon as possible. I also believe we are indebted to Senator Harradine for having brought this matter to the attention of the Senate today. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(3.16) —I move: That the Australian Senate condemns the systematic deprivation by the Islamic Republic of Iran of the most basic rights of citizens of that country whose only crime is that they are members of the Baha'i and other minority religious faiths . It is fortuitous that these motions, notice of which was given on the same day, have come up for debate in the Senate today. I am grateful that the Senate has seen fit to support the motion moved by Senator Harradine on a related matter concerning human rights in another part of the world. I hope the Senate will see fit to support my motion. I belong to one of the religious faiths which are having difficulties in Iran. My motion has been moved at the behest of members of the Baha'i community in Australia who are frantic, concerned and unhappy about what is happening to their brothers and sisters in Iran in what is emerging as a systematic regime of persecution and genocide. I suppose it is fair to say that the theocratic state has many drawbacks, but absolute theocracies are potentially evil and potentially dangerous. We see in Iran an absolutist regime which is unwilling to acknowledge the rights of other people to a view about their lives, their beliefs, or how they should live them. This matter has been raised previously in the Parliament. I am reminded that my former colleague and friend, former Senator Puplick, raised the matter in the Senate in March 1981. It was raised in another place by the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton). On both those occasions the Parliament saw fit to support and agree with the propositions that were put. In March 1981 a serious situation existed in Iran in relation to members of the Baha'i faith and other minority groups. The situation is more serious now; their need is more extreme. When this matter was raised in the Senate in March 1981 honourable senators saw fit to deplore the continued persecution of religious minorities and, in particular, members of the Baha'i faith. I am asking the Senate today to vote for a motion to condemn what is going on in Iran, to condemn the systematic deprivation-it is not occasional, it is systematic, planned, determined and ongoing deprivation-of the rights of the Baha'i people. Since that time many groups have raised their voices. However, it is necessary to raise our voices again here today. Despite world protests, despite the efforts by Amnesty International, despite motions submitted to the Human Rights Commission, the Ayatollah Khomeini and his Iranian Government have continued their campaign against those religious minorities whose crime is that their beliefs diverge from those of the Government. Since the Ayatollah came to power in Iran Baha'is have had their property confiscated, have faced summary execution and have been subjected to laws which effectively bar them from any kind of work. A report in the Sydney Morning Herald on 4 July this year, quoting the Guardian newspaper in Britain, stated: It is now feared that Ayatollah Khomeini's Islamic regime has begun a macabre drive against women's liberation-because the religion of those executed preaches sexual equality. That paper was reporting the hanging of two women earlier in June. Their crime was that they had asserted and stood up for the rights of women. The Baha'i religion is a gentle religion. The basic principles of the Baha'i faith is that its followers believe in the oneness of mankind. They believe in the independent investigation of truth, the common foundation of all religions, the essential harmony of science and religion, the elimination of prejudice, universal compulsory education, spiritual solutions to political, economic and social problems. They believe in a universal auxiliary language and the seeking of world solutions to some of the problems facing us today. These are not evil beliefs. There is nothing in their practices which is evil or which requires them to be attacked. They seek to make life easier. They respect other religions . Some honourable senators may have attended Baha'i services. The Baha'is have a splendid place of worship at Ingleside near the northern beaches of Sydney. It has been my pleasure to go there and join the Baha'i people. They are gentle, they are accepting, they are tolerant and they are community builders. If they are like that in Australia, I am willing to believe they are like that throughout the world. The Baha'i religion dates back 130 years. Since that time it has expanded rapidly throughout the world. It is present in most countries. It is the largest religious minority in Iran. It is interesting that the constitution of Iran which protects religious minorities-it protects the Jewish religion, Christianity and the religion of the Zoroastrians-does not protect, mention or recognise the Baha'i faith. The members of the Baha'i faith were originally members of the Islamic faith. They are regarded by the regime in Iran as being heretics. Because of this the Islamic revolutionary regimes in countries such as Iran regard them as heretics and deviants to the true religion and have persecuted them in a systematic way. Religious prejudice against the Baha'i community has become institutionalised in Iran. The situation was not good before the revolution. Let us not look at this through rose coloured glasses. Under the Pahlavi regime the Baha'is suffered discrimination because they were still regarded as heretics in an Islamic country. But they had a place and they could cope. The situation has become intolerable since the revolution. The Baha'i faith has never been granted recognition as an independent religion by the Iranian Government under the Iranian constitution. There is a lack of basic constitutional safeguards for the Baha'is. This has meant that successive governments have enacted discriminatory legislation which has severely curtailed any basic rights which they have had and any freedoms we would regard as the automatic right of any citizen in our community. After the Islamic revolution there occurred, and has continued to occur, a systematic and co-ordinated campaign of persecution against the Baha'is . The aim of the campaign, which still continues, is nothing less than the total removal of the Baha'i people and the Baha'i faith from the country. To achieve this, no measure it too great. The campaign involves murder, hangings, trials and expropriation-matters which I will set out in little while. As recently as 5 August this year we heard reports of a further 24 Baha'is being arrested. Most of those who are arrested end up being executed. Currently, 500 local institutions which administer Baha'i affairs-they are called local spiritual assemblies-exist in the cities, towns and villages of Iran but exist only tenuously. It is the members and appointed officers of the National Spiritual Assembly and of the local spiritual assemblies who are said to constitute the leadership of the Iranian Baha'i community. It is these people who are the targets of the campaign which is going on. In preparing this motion I asked myself: What is the reason for this persecution? I have already indicated that the religion itself is regarded as heresy and the members of its faith are regarded as heretics to Islam. Charges have been made that the Baha'is co-operated actively with the Shah's regime. Charges have been made that they are opposed to the present regime. These charges could have been cooked up, or levelled equally, against the vast majority of Iranians, including many members of the clergy. This applies especially when the charges are brought systematically against Baha'is because they are Baha'is, not because of what they may have written, said or done. One can see that this is in fact a convenience. I remind honourable senators that the Baha'i religion is one which preaches non-involvement in politics. They are, however-- Senator Ryan —Perhaps they are sensible. Senator PETER BAUME —I think they would be welcome in this country with its spirit of ecumenical concern. They are loyal to the government of the day. I am sure that that is something that Senator Ryan would also find very acceptable. There is no evidence and there has never been that they are attempting to overthrow the Khomeini regime. However, what matters today in Iran is not so much whether the Baha'is as a group actually co-operated with the former regime but that many Iranians, particularly members of the Khomeini administration, believe that they did and they have been given no chance to prove that the charge is false. They are not getting the right to a fair and proper trial. Arrests which take place follow no proper procedures. No proper procedures are followed in the confiscation of the property. Moreover, the arbitrary execution of Baha'i people-families, citizens and communities-takes place. The forms of persecution to which they are subject include the confiscation and destruction of community assets. This has taken several forms. There has been destruction of their holy places and their religious sites. This has included the destruction of their most holy shrine in Iran, where the Baha'i faith had its beginnings in 1844. There has been destruction and desecration of their cemeteries. The Baha'i hospital in Tehran, which served all races and religions, was confiscated and all rights to it were denied the Baha'is. The national Baha' i centre in Tehran was seized by fanatics and was designated as a free Moslem university. In addition to confiscation and destruction there has been fiscal strangulation . Baha'is have been deprived systematically of their means of livelihood, of the right to seek jobs, of their homes and of their possessions. They have been persecuted by physical means. There has been physical intimidation to compel recantation of their faith. They have been persecuted by dismissal from public and private employment on the ground that they belong to what has been described as a depraved religion. Pressure has been exerted on private employers to dismiss the Baha'is. Faced with the regime in Iran, it is not surprising that some private employers have acquiesced on the ground that these people are heretics. There has been persecution in that they have been denied burial facilities. They have been forced to bury their dead in barren stretches of land . They have not been given the same rights after death as are accorded other citizens of their country. They have been denied education and vocational training. They are not allowed to enrol in many schools or universities without declaring their religion. If they declare that they are of the Baha'i faith they are not permitted to receive an education in Iran. This is indeed a sorry list of persecutions. I must also point out, however, that at regular intervals I have received from the Baha'i community in Australia letters setting out the latest sad events. In May of this year I received a letter from Mr Bolton, a Baha'i friend in Sydney, advising me that he had recently received reliable information on the further execution by hanging of three innocent Baha'i friends-two men and a woman-in Shiraz on 12 March 1983. He mentioned their names in his letter. Their bodies were buried by prison guards without the knowledge of presence of relatives and their families were not advised of the executions. The same correspondent advised me in June that a further 20 people had been executed in Shiraz in shameful circumstances, ten of them women from the age of 18 upwards. Their crime was that they were Baha'is and they had refused to recant their faith. I received in June of this year from the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of Australia Incorporated a letter setting out the names, first, of six Baha'i men who were hanged in Shiraz on 6 June; and, secondly, of 10 Baha'i women who were executed in Shiraz also on 18 June. Their names are in my possession. It is not really necessary for the purpose of this debate for me to incorporate those names in Hansard or read them out. In July I received a further letter from the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is setting out yet another list of names of people executed for no good reason apart from the fact that they were adherents of a particular religion. Finally, in August this year, just a few days ago, I received yet another letter and yet another list. On this occasion the letter concerned 24 more Baha'is, including 10 women who had been arrested between 3 August and 5 August. The letter sets out in different places the names of each of those persons. We have here a series of events which, had they occurred in Europe in the 1930s , would have been recognised as genocide, which is defined as activities directed to the elimination of a group from a society because of its beliefs. I believe that few honourable senators would not wish to support a motion expressing our revulsion and condemnation of what is going on. These are not random events; they are not the actions of some local authorities acting in a maverick fashion; they are the planned and approved actions of a theocracy determined to deny to some of its citizens the right to believe and practise their beliefs. I hope that the Senate will see fit to support and approve this motion. If it is approved by the Senate I hope that we can ask Mr President to pass on the contents of the resolution to the appropriate Iranian authorities so that they may be aware of the views of this Senate. I seek from honourable senators support for my motion. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(3.35) —Subject to a note of caution which I shall sound before I sit down, the Government does not oppose this motion. Indeed, we could not do so because for a considerable time the Government, along with just about everyone else around the world, has been deeply concerned at the disturbing human rights situation in Iran, and in particular the actions taken by the Iranian authorities against the Baha'i community as outlined by Senator Baume today. We have normal diplomatic relations with Iran and wish to see Iran play a full role in the international community. In our contacts with the Iranians, both in Tehran and in Canberra, we have expressed our concerns at the human rights situation in that country. Our embassy in Tehran has made direct representations to the Iranian Foreign Ministry and has also participated in a number of joint demarche to the Iranian Government with like-minded countries represented in Tehran. The latest of these approaches was made in July this year. Australia has spoken out strongly in the United Nations General Assembly and in the United Nations Commission on Human Rights against discrimination and persecution on religious or other grounds. We have taken up the specific issue of the Baha'is in Iran in these forums. At the 1983 session of the Commission on Human Rights the Australian delegation played an active role as a co-sponsor of the resolution condemning human rights violations in Iran, with particular reference to the Baha'is. We look forward to seeing the visit of the UN mission to Iran provided for in this resolution proceed as soon as possible. At this point I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the two-page copy of the resolution in question. Leave granted. The document read as follows- 1983/84 Question of the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in any part of the world, with particular reference to colonial and other dependent countries and territories 1/ 2/ The situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran The Commission on Human Rights. Guided by the principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenants on Human Rights. Reaffirming that all Member States have an obligation to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms and to fulfil the obligations they have undertaken under the various international instruments in this field. Recalling General Assembly resolution 36/22 of 1981 and General Assembly resolution 37/182 of 17 December 1982 on the practice of arbitrary or summary executions, Recalling also General Assembly resolution 36/55 proclaiming the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, Recalling further its own resolution 1982/27 of 11 March 1982 in which the Commission inter alia urged the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to respect and ensure the rights of all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction, Mindful of resolution 1982/25 of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, Taking note of the Edict of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran of 16 December 1982 calling for the correction of judicial abuses, Having carefully examined the report of the Secretary-General (E/CN.4/1983/19) and the relevant sections in the report on summary or arbitrary executions (E/CN .4/1983/16), Encouraged by the report of the Secretary-General (E/CN.4/1983/52) in which he announces a mission of his Representative to the Islamic Republic of Iran, providing an opportunity to clarify further the situation of human rights in that country, 1. Expresses its profound concern at the continuing grave violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the Islamic Republic of Iran as reflected in the report of the Secretary-General, and particularly at the evidence of summary and arbitrary executions, torture, detention without trial, religious intolerance and persecution, in particular of the Baha'is, and the lack of an independent judiciary and other recognised safeguards for a fair trial; 2. Urges once more the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, as a State party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to respect and ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognised in that Covenant; 3. Requests the Secretary-General or his representative to continue direct contacts with the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran on the grave human rights situation prevailing in that country, excluding the situation of the Baha 'is; 4. Requests also the Secretary-General or his representative to submit to the Commission on Human Rights at its fortieth session a comprehensive report on the direct contacts and the human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran including conclusions and suggestions as regards the respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in that country; 5. Requests once more the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to extend its co-operation to the Secretary-General or his representative; 6. Decides to continue its consideration of the human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran at its fortieth session. Senator GARETH EVANS —In response to the most recent reports of executions of Baha'is in Shiraz, our missions to the United Nations in New York and Geneva pursued inquiries with the United Nations secretariat to ascertain whether an approach to the Iranians through the United Nations would be of value. We were advised that the secretariat was currently following up the resolutions adopted by the Commission on Human Rights, including the question of the visiting UN mission. The Government is aware that many members and senators in the Australian Parliament are concerned at the plight of the Baha'is. That has been evident from debate on previous occasions, and is evident again from Senator Baume's contribution today. I believe this concern is already well known to the Iranian Government. It is important that any further actions on Australia's part-this is the note of caution that I foreshadowed-should, however, be as effective as possible and, indeed, should not risk being counter-productive. In this respect, the negative reaction, if I might put it euphemistically, of the Iranian authorities to President Reagan's public intervention on behalf of the Baha'is recently, in Shiraz, should perhaps be borne in mind. The Government will therefore continue to monitor the human rights situation in Iran and express its concern over the Baha'is and other human rights issues in ways that will be as constructive as possible and, in particular, which will not put the Baha'i community at even greater risk than it is at the moment. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(3.39) —I wish briefly to join with the strong support given to the motion so ably moved by Senator Baume. I believe that this action is necessary. As I said on a previous occasion, it is necessary for us to remind the world constantly of this persecution of the Baha'i community. As in the case of Senator Baume from New South Wales, there is a substantial number of people of that faith in Victoria, the State which I represent. Many have approached me and I know they are terribly concerned about the inability of countries outside Iran to achieve very much so far in regard to this matter. It is terrible when we have such systematic destruction of a group. They are the words Senator Baume has used in his motion, and that is what it is-a systematic destruction of human rights. It is not just a matter of some temporary prejudice sweeping across a community; it is not just a case of some breakdown in views. It is quite clearly a determined attitude; a determination to build up hatred towards the people who belong to that community. As Senator Baume said, this has led to the death of a great number of the leading Baha'is in Iran and therefore a weakening of that community and its very organisation. This in turn has led to an inability to maintain its religious and cultural needs. Senator Baume also described the deprivations suffered by this group in an educational sense. That is terribly important because it means probably the permanent destruction of a community inside Iran. One of the criticisms made by the Iranian Government is that the Baha'is chief shrine happens to be in Israel. Baha'is have been in that part of the world for quite a while. That is used as a specious excuse to suggest that, therefore, they are obeying the dictates of the Israeli Government. It is that type of prejudice and appeal to false nationalism which is so regrettable. This Parliament carried resolutions some two years ago expressing its concern about the situation. In 1981 I happened to be in London at the time a massive protest was organised. It was held in one of the biggest committee rooms in the House of Commons and something like 1,000 people attended. Many of them were Baha'is but there were also many other people who believe in liberty. I was asked, as a visiting member of this Parliament, to join the panel and speak with a number of very significant British politicians and community leaders. The fact that the Australian Parliament had adopted resolutions on this matter-I think it was about the first to do so-was warmly received by the people there. After the meeting I received many thanks from a great number of Baha'is who were concerned about what they could do. They saw Australia, a country very distant from Iran, as one country that was taking a positive step. Therefore, it is important that we keep taking these steps. I recognise the note of caution raised by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). Of course, we must not take action which may lead unnecessarily to further distress and attack on the Baha'is in Iran but one cannot just ignore these things and allow a community to disappear and go out of existence. Sometimes so great is the state of terror in a country that it is very difficult to do much. The Amnesty International organisation can adopt prisoners of conscience and where there are at least trials-even in the Soviet Union there are trials-someone can be there to observe them; something can be done. But unfortunately, in cases like Idi Amin in Uganda and now the regime in Iran, things become bestial and there is no reasoning. Deaths happen without trials and it is very difficult for the normal steps to be taken, with much effect, by international organisations. Therefore, I think parliaments must indicate to countries like Iran the horror that we feel at the behaviour that has taken place. Therefore, I warmly welcome and support this motion, I hope that it will be carried unanimously by this chamber. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(3.43) —As someone who has formerly had a very close association with the Baha'is and their teachings, may I warmly support and adopt everything said by Senator Peter Baume in moving this motion. It relates to one of the most heinous examples of religious persecution and genocide. It is not only reminiscent of the very worst examples of history but also is something which one would hope that this world might be finding its way past. All too regrettably we find worse and worse examples of its continuation. The Baha'i religion is a religion of such excellence that my major question is as to its practicality in our imperfect world. It represents a gentle and non- interventionist belief in the most humane and fundamental principles. It is incredible that the regime in Iran is in a position in which it can attempt to justify upon any possible basis any measures of repression in relation to the Baha'is, let alone the revolting measures which are taken. I join with others in wishing to express our revulsion and condemnation of the regime which is behaving in the way which has been described. I warmly support the motion and, duly acknowledging the warning expressed by the Attorney-General , Senator Gareth Evans, in speaking to this motion, nevertheless will support the request of Senator Peter Baume that when the motion is carried, as I hope it will be, it will be forwarded to the appropriate authorities, including the United Nations. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(3.46) —I move: That the Senate is of the opinion that tertiary students in Australia have been disadvantaged by the precipitate action of the Labor Government discontinuing student loans before any of the promised alternative forms of student support have been put in place. I gave notice of this motion on 21 April 1983. At that stage I imagined that the Government would be moving to honour one of its specific election promises-that is, to put in place some alternative to loans. Nothing has happened. What was a valid concern, objection and criticism in April is now a question of disgraceful concern to students across Australia. The context in which this matter is brought up has to be seen in relation to this week's Budget and in what this week's Budget failed to do for students across Australia. This was a Budget in which the financial support for Australia's tertiary students was cut in real terms. Their allowances, with the exception of the secondary allowances scheme-I acknowledge to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, Senator Ryan, that that has gone up in real terms-have gone down in real terms. In real terms students in universities are worse off under this Budget. Students in universities are worse off under this Budget in real terms-that is, in what they can purchase-than they were last year. In the Budget last year I obtained significant real increases for Australia's students. I presented them. Where are they this year? In real terms, they are down. Students will be worse off in terms of cash or what the benefits are worth. They will not have available to them any kind of loans scheme. I use this opportunity to correct an error in something which Senator Ryan said this morning. The increase in the means test has not been enough to keep up with wage increases. What that means is that fewer families-not many-will be able to qualify for entry into student support than could do so last year. The best figures that I could obtain show that from June to June wages rose by 6.8 per cent. This year the means test extension for students was 6 per cent. The means test has gone up 6 per cent. Wages have gone up by more than 6 per cent. Fewer families will qualify to get into the Goverment's schemes. When they do get in the allowances are lower in real terms. It is in that context, the context of abandoning Australia's students, of failing to honour a number of specific election promises directed to students and to their support, that this motion comes up and is relevant. I remind the Minister that this year she has managed to widen the gap between the unemployment benefit, which has gone up considerably, and student support, which has dropped in real terms. This year she has increased the disincentives against people continuing in education. She has made it worth people's financial while to go on to the unemployment benefit rather than remaining in education or training. Any reading of the figures makes this apparent. The gap between the tertiary education assistance scheme allowance and the unemployment benefit has worsened. Against this context, the place of student loans becomes relevant and a proper matter of concern for the Senate. I remind honourable senators also that last year we introduced, and this Parliament approved, arrangements for student loans. Student loans were to become part of an additional support for those in educational institutions across Australia. They were to be available to those who wished to use them. They were to be made available at a considerable interest rate reduction. There was a considerable interest rate subsidy by the Government. There was to be a considerable holiday before the money had to be repaid. The repayments were to be limited by the earning and repayment capacity of the recipient of the loan. The Australian Labor Party, in going into the election, made a number of commitments. One of those commitments was to abandon the tertiary student loans scheme. Another of those commitments was to replace it with something better. Now we find that the Labor Government has abandoned the loans scheme and replaced it with nothing. Students are worse off not only because their allowances are worth less but also because a loans scheme which was previously available as an extra on which they could draw is no longer available and nothing has been brought forward to put in its place. Some documents which deal with student financing have been produced. Many honourable senators will have seen the Beswick report which is entitled 'Studies of Tertiary Student Finances' which was tabled in the Senate on 18 May this year . Honourable senators will be aware that in the document various proposals for funds available to students were discussed and evaluated. The Beswick report came down favourably on the introduction of a portfolio approach to student financing-not to depend solely on one kind of support, not to depend solely on another kind of support-where students could depend upon a mixture of forms of support which might well include student loans. The Beswick report made no bones about it. It indicated that student loans are not bad; however, student loans should be supported only as part of an approach to students. That is, of course, what I was seeking. When, as Minister for Education, I came in with a loans proposal, I also came in with a real increase in the TEAS benefit. I recall that last year the TEAS benefit went up 20 per cent. This year it will go up 5 per cent. Last year, in real terms, it went up 9 per cent. This year, in real terms, it is down 6 per cent. A loans scheme was appropriate as an adjunct. If I turn to page 32 of volume 4 of the Beswick report I can see that it discusses the place of loans in a comprehensive policy, because only a comprehensive policy of support is appropriate. If the Australian Labor Party were implementing what it promised we would be getting towards a comprehensive support. But it is one thing to promise and it is another thing to deliver. The Beswick report makes it clear that loans are neither good nor bad, but the context in which they are offered makes them appropriate or less appropriate. In paragraph 2.52 the report suggested that under certain circumstances student loans could serve a useful purpose. The paragraph states: . . . loans could serve a useful purpose . . . (a) to meet short-time emergencies, especially when coupled with personal advice and in a co-operative institutional environment; or (b) near the end of a professional course when prospects of a good income in the near future are well established; or- I quote the third purpose: (c) among certain social groups, or for individuals with particular preferences in living conditions, as an optional extra to top up other income including TEAS allowances. The Beswick report in no way has discarded loans as a reasonable option. It has sought a portfolio approach to student financing, which might include family support, self-help, the provision of support through the tertiary education assistance scheme, the provision of loans and the provision of scholarships. Let us be quite clear. We have, from an authoritative body appointed by the Federal Government to study this matter and to report to it and to the Australian people , a suggested approach which should include student loans as one option. The Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee, as recently as last April or May, in its writings put out statements supportive of the ideas of loans as an appropriate form of support for students in appropriate circumstances. The Australian Labor Party promised to abolish the loans scheme which we had proposed. As the Government of the day it is entitled to do that and indeed it has done it. But it should not be forgotten that early this year, during the election which was held at the same time as the enrolment period, when no action was being taken to promote loans within universities, 700 to 800 students actually made applications for loans under the scheme. Did we have fun getting this information out in the Estimates Committee! We eventually got it. It was finally given to us during the hearing of Estimates Committee D by Mr Rolfe, one of the officers. In spite of the difficulties, between 700 and 800 students took it upon themselves to indicate that they wanted access to those loans. During the campaign to get legislation through to establish loans, some of those student politicians campaigning vigorously against the Bill left us in no doubt that if it were passed they intended to apply for loans themselves. Be that as it may, the Australian Labor Party promised to abolish that scheme and to put in its place an alternative, an emergency loan scheme to be administered on campus. That was one of the litany of specific promises concerning education which this Government made and which it has already dishonoured. In addition it promised that the tertiary education assistance scheme would be reviewed and increased-another of the specific promises made and dishonoured. It promised that the gap between TEAS and the dole would be narrowed-another promise made and dishonoured. The student loans scheme may have been ideologically unacceptable, but I put it to the Senate that the procedure which the Government should have adopted if it was not to disadvantage students was to put its new proposal in place and then discard the loans scheme it did not like. However, it has discarded the existing benefit and not replaced it. Our concern is that students on campuses in Australia have lost something which was available to them and have had nothing put in its place. It is for that reason that I moved: 'That the Senate is of the opinion that the students have been disadvantaged'. It is quite clear that they have been disadvantaged. They have lost a benefit. The fact that they have been disadvantaged even further in this week's Budget merely drives home the extent of this disadvantage and the failure of this Minister to be able to deliver upon the promises made so freely during the campaign by her predecessor the former shadow Minister for education matters, on behalf of her party. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(4.01) —I oppose on a number of grounds the motion moved by Senator Peter Baume. First I must comment on his use of the word 'precipitate'. He admits that it was an undertaking of the Australian Labor Party in opposition to abolish the student loans scheme, and we made that undertaking for very good reasons, which I will explain to the Senator. As that undertaking was made last year and as some months elapsed before it was implemented I believe that the use of the word 'precipitate' is highly inappropriate. No one can say that he or she did not know that the Government intended not to proceed with that scheme. From the very outset of discussion about the student loans scheme we opposed it and said that we would not have such a scheme when in government. So to claim that there was somehow some precipitate action involved in this is as ludicrous and as false as most of the other claims that Senator Peter Baume made during his address. I also remind the Senate of what we are talking about in terms of fulfilling election promises with regard to expenditure in education. Senator Baume told the Senate that in the last Budget of the Fraser Government he secured a significant increase for tertiary allowances. That is certainly true, and at the time it was acknowledged by us as being a constructive move. However, what he failed to remind the Senate of was that for most of the years that the Fraser Government was in office there was no increase, real or otherwise, for tertiary allowances-not one cent. That created a huge gap in the level of allowances which were available and the level we would like to see for students to be able to live in a reasonable way. The inadequacy of the present level of TEAS-we admit it is not all we wish it to be-is the responsibility of years of neglect by the Fraser Government. Coming in at the last moment with an increase as Senator Baume did last year, did not make up for those years in which the student allowances had been eroded. During the many years in which the Fraser Government was in power the eligibility for student allowances was not increased either. However, in our Budget not only have we increased the level of allowances available to students but also we have liberalised the means tests applied to students. Instead of the 700 students that Senator Baume claims wanted a loan under the Fraser Government 's loans scheme, several thousand more will become eligible for TEAS. We regard that as being an important measure in achieving our objective of more and wider participation in tertiary education in this country. Senator Peter Baume implied that had the electors decided differently from the way they did in March this year there would have been massive expenditure on education. I remind the Senate that the person my colleague Senator Walsh likes to refer to as the former discredited Treasurer, Mr John Howard, said on an Australian Broadcasting Corporation interview a couple of evenings ago that had he been Treasurer this year instead of Paul Keating he would not have increased expenditure in any area of public spending except defence and social security. So we have from the mouth of the former discredited Treasurer this statement that there would have been no increase in education at all under a Liberal government, whereas under the Hawke Labor Government there has been an increase. Honourable senators will be aware that the increase in student allowances is not as great as we would wish to see it. We still have a commitment to increase and to overhaul student allowances and we still wish to pursue a progressive policy of increasing them. We are by no means complacent that the level of increase we have been able to achieve in this extraordinarily difficult economic climate that we have inherited from the Fraser Government is adequate. However, it is a sign of our good faith in this area. I turn briefly to our opposition to the loans scheme. In the view of the Government loans are not an efficient or an equitable means of providing assistance to students. There is extensive overseas experience of student loans schemes which shows that they are not successful and that there is a very high default rate. We would have expected a similarly high default rate here had a student loans scheme been implemented and, of course, they do very little in terms of widening the access of groups to universities. If we had proceeded with the loans scheme that Senator Baume is so enthusiastic about, such a scheme would have placed a very heavy burden on the very groups that are already under-represented in tertiary education, that is, women, particularly mature aged women with children to support, Aborigines and poor people generally. Those groups already have little access to tertiary education. If access to tertiary education were to be made dependent on the ability to take out a loan, the access of those disadvantaged groups would be even worse than it is now. One of the major concerns of the Government with regard to tertiary education is that it is not available broadly enough throughout the community. This Government supports tertiary education. We believe in the value of tertiary education for society, for the economy and for the individual. It is of great concern to us that the people who currently have access to tertiary education come from a very narrow socio-economic group. In other words, most people who are able to enter tertiary education come from the relatively affluent sectors of society. I know that there are exceptions to this generalisation but it is a sound generalisation nonetheless and a matter of concern to us. At this point I will refer briefly to a recent study which has been made of patterns of participation in Australian tertiary education. I refer to the Anderson and Vervoorn study entitled 'Access to Privilege-Patterns of Participation in Australian Post-Secondary Education' which will be published next month. The significant finding of that study is that the socio-economic mix of students enrolled in higher education has altered very little since the 1950s . Students from families whose backgrounds are professional or managerial have a representation in higher education which is significantly out of proportion to their numbers in the community at large. Senator Peter Baume —What is the name of that report, Senator? Senator RYAN —The name of the report-I am pleased that Senator Baume is paying attention to it-is 'Access to Privilege-Patterns of Participation in Australian Post-Secondary Education'. The authors are Don Anderson and Vervoorn. It will be published next month and has already been reviewed in the Saturday papers. Its findings are such that it should attract the attention of all people who are interested in having an equitable education system. Access to tertiary education is inequitable; the study I have quoted is only one source of evidence for that. Anybody who has spent any time on campuses throughout Australia will know that that is the case. If we had proceeded with a loans scheme we would have simply reinforced that current inequitable pattern. No matter how loans schemes are set up, the ability of students to undertake loan repayments depends on having affluent families supporting them. Anybody in the Senate who went to university in the days when the teachers bond loan scheme was available would know that. It was always a great burden on students to have to undertake a loan which they would then have to spend the first years of their working life paying back. There has been an argument in favour of a loans scheme to the effect that if a student is to study medicine or law, he or she will be assured subsequently of a very high income and will be in a position to pay back a loan. That may well be true in the case of medicine and law, although it is not true for those graduates of medical or law schools who are now-I am pleased to say that there is an increasing number of them-using their professional skills in very low paid areas such as working for legal services, Aboriginal legal services or Aboriginal health services. It is certainly not true of students who undertake other degrees that lead them to work in the voluntary sector for organisations such as the Brotherhood of St Laurence and so forth, or for people who want to go into some other area of social commitment that does not bring with it a very high wage or salary. A loans scheme would distort the kinds of courses that students would feel free to undertake but most significantly, as far as the Labor Government is concerned , it would do nothing to broaden the range of people in our community who have access to the very considerable advantages of tertiary education. It is for those reasons that the loans scheme was abandoned by us as soon as we were elected, as indeed we undertook to do. I know that colleagues of mine want to make contributions on this matter also. In conclusion, I simply say that we are taking very seriously the need to provide more support to people seeking to enter tertiary education. We have as our major objective an increased participation in tertiary education. I believe that the steps that we have been able to take in the current very difficult economic circumstances will mean that more people will be able to go to university and that the lives of those who are currently eligible for the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme allowance will be a little less miserable than they have been in previous years. As I have said, that is not enough; it does not satisfy our aspirations for tertiary education and its availability in this country. But it is a significant first step and one which has come after years of erosion and neglect of support by the previous discedited Fraser Administration for students from poorer families. I oppose the motion moved by Senator Baume. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(4.11) — I support the motion of my colleague Senator Baume, which states: That the Senate is of the opinion that tertiary students in Australia have been disadvantaged by the precipitate action of the Labor Government discontinuing student loans before any of the promised alternative forms of student support have been put in place. The operative words in the motion are 'before any of the promised alternative forms of student support have been put in place'. As the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) has said, I acknowledge that the Australian Labor Party, when it supported in November last year the introduction of the Fraser Government student loans scheme, stated: 'But if we gain government we will abolish the loans scheme'. But, at the same time, the Labor spokesman said: 'We will abolish it because we will make better financial provisions for students'. That was a clear promise linked with the policy statement that the loans scheme, though supported in November 1982, would be abolished by the Labor Party. That is the rub, the offence that leads us on this side of the chamber to support Senator Baume in this motion. The students of Australia need to shake off their chains and wake up. They need to understand that under the Liberal Government more financial resources were available for tertiary study in Australia than there are currently, or will be next year, under the ALP Government. They can test that by any kind of analysis. It is already acknowledged in the Senate that the decisions of the Budget with regard to student assistance schemes will make available less real financial support through the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme and through the post- graduate award scheme than was the case in the last year of the Fraser Government. At the same time, $50m of the loans scheme is not in place and neither are the alternative financial resources that the Labor Party promised to students. I contest that students will readily acknowledge that fewer financial resources are available in real terms from this Government than were available in the last year of the Liberal Government. I was the Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts that conducted an inquiry in October and November last year into the provisions of the Student Assistance (Loans Guarantee and Subsidy) Bill 1982. It was a bipartisan committee. Senator Giles, a Labor senator from Western Australia, who is in the chamber, was Deputy Chairman of the inquiry. There were three Labor senators and three Liberal senators. Senator Macklin, an Australian Democrat senator, also took a close interest in the inquiry and attended many of our hearings. A wide range of submissions and witnesses came to public hearings. They included representatives of students, educational institutions, banks and so on. What was the conclusion of that inquiry? What did the Senate Committee find about the $50m per year loans scheme proposal of the former Government? First of all, it addressed itself to the two main objections which a minority, I contest, of students were putting up as disadvantages of the proposed scheme. The first was that this loan scheme would erode, they said, the existing student assistance program. The Senate inquiry found totally to the contrary. The second objection raised was that only certain students would be eligible for the loans; that women students, students whose courses would lead to lower incomes than that of others on graduation, Aboriginal students, students who came perhaps from low income families and students who could be discriminated against on grounds of age or even academic record, might not be as eligible as would some other students. The Senate Committee found that eligibility was available to all students alike, save that one criterion could disallow a loan to a student. That criterion was a pre-existing bad credit rating. No other criteria were to be taken into account. In other words, if a student already was in debt or was irresponsible in servicing a debt the loan would not be added to his difficulties. But there would be no discrimination on grounds of age, sex, type of course, future earning capacity or whatever. Certainly there would be no need for a parent, a cousin, a neighbour or a friend to be a guarantor of the loan. In fact, the Government was the guarantor. I see that Senator Robertson readily acknowledges this lack of discrimination in the Bill. Senator Giles, Senator Hearn, Senator Robert Ray and I all agreed that-- Senator Robertson —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy President. The remark which the worthy senator made may have been intended to be facetious but it will have gone into the record. I certainly acknowledge none of the comments that are being made by Senator Teague. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —That is not a point of order. Senator Robertson may make a personal explanation later if he claims to have been misrepresented. Senator TEAGUE —I say to Senator Robertson, through you, Mr Deputy President, that that was in fact the finding of the six senators at that time. Conclusion No. 2 stated: Apart from the eligibility provisions set out in the Bill which are to be administered by the Commonwealth Department of Education, the Agreement between the Government and the banks will restrict the banks to take into account only one criterion on which an eligible student's application for a loan can be denied: that is, a prior unsatisfactory repayment record already established by the applicant. Other factors such as future earning capacity, course of study, age, sex, academic record and socio-economic background will not be taken into account when banks are considering applications for loans. That was a unanimous finding. My comment to Senator Robertson was that he would readily acknowledge that that was a unanimous finding because it is in the report of the Senate Standing Committee that was tabled in this chamber. So the two objections, put up by a minority group of students, which led to some concern in the earlier debate on this matter in the Senate, were put to rest by the inquiry. Let me read the first conclusion, which related to its being totally supplementary to the other existing forms of student assistance. We agreed unanimously to this conclusion: The student loans scheme provided for by the Student Assistance (Loans Guarantee and Subsidy) Bill 1982 will not replace or diminish the grants schemes of student assistance, whether the Commonwealth Postgraduate Awards Scheme, the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme, the Adult Secondary Education Assistance Scheme or the Aboriginal Study Grants Scheme. The only significant effect of the loans scheme on these four grants schemes will be to supplement the benefits currently available under them. Eligibility under the loans scheme will be considerably wider than under the grants schemes. I can only repeat that the students of Australia should shake off their chains and wake up. They should realise that this year the tertiary education allowance scheme will provide $180m in financial resources to students. The student loan scheme, which was disbanded, provided an additional $50m or some 30 per cent on the existing level of assistance. There is to be, under this year's Budget, a measly 5 per cent rise in expenditure on the tertiary education allowance scheme . That 5 per cent increase represents less than half of the inflation rate. Students will no doubt welcome the couple of dollars a week increase in the tertiary education assistance scheme allowance but will that approximately $8m in extra resources substitute for the $50m that would otherwise have been provided? The informal sense of the promise given by the Australian Labor Party was: ' Look, this is an additional resource for students. In November 1982 we will allow the $50m in loans to take place. When we get into office we will disband the scheme but, at the same time, we will make available to tertiary students additional financial resources-meaning at least a $50m increase in TEAS expenditure or on special schemes that would achieve our joint purpose of widening access to tertiary education'. I say plainly that the words of the motion are manifestly true-that an additional substantial resource, $50m, has been denied the students of Australia's universities, colleges and the TAFE sector without any of the promised ALP alternative student financial resources being provided to replace them. I now turn to recommendation 8 of the Senate Committee's findings. Recommendation 8 was also a unanimous recommendation. It looked to a still further financial resource being available to students of Australia. It states: The Committee recommends that the Government distribute additional grants to higher education institutions for the specific purpose of ensuring that emergency loan funds for students in need operate at all such institutions. The existing loan funds should be supplemented as necessary to ensure that there is an adequate level of resources available. These campus-based emergency loans funds are, in principle, I believe as warmly welcomed by Government members as they are welcomed by Liberal Party members, Australian Democrats and Senator Harradine. I think that the general purposes of these emergency loan schemes and their superior qualities, even when compared with the $50m bank-based loan scheme, are understood in this chamber. A number of us have spoken about them at length. I will briefly summarise how I believe they might operate. There could be a per capita distribution of moneys from the Commonwealth to all tertiary education institutions. A tertiary institution, if it is small, might receive $70,000. If it is larger, it might receive $200,000. There would be a fair distribution of moneys. The money would be given to a student emergency loan fund on each campus, administered by a loan committee responsible to the institution's council. Students with emergency financial needs could then apply directly to that loan committee. The average loan might be $300, $400 or $500, with an upper limit of about $1,000. I believe that the loans should operate without interest accruing whilst the period of agreed repayment is elapsing and that only after default would interest accrue on such a loan. The normal time of repayment for these rather small loans would be the end of the next summer vacation or the end of the summer vacation after that. One of the points of genius about these emergency loan schemes which are campus based is that students see them as coming from a pool that is fixed, one that is only periodically supplemented by any government or by bequests from individuals . Therefore, if the loans are not repaid to the campus based loan fund some other student will be denied the financial resource to meet an emergency. When a bank is providing the money, or the Commonwealth or State governments are providing the money, I am sorry to say that sometimes some students, like other adults in the community, feel it less imperative to pay the money back on time. Notoriously, when there were teacher education bonds and scholarships under which money had to be repaid, it was considered less imperative to pay money back. But where the money will go back into a fund which will help other students, not to pay it back is seen by students to be very immoral because the student is denying the resource to his mate, to someone who is in much the same situation as he was when he received his loan. Available evidence about these emergency loan schemes-they have operated well in universities or colleges- indicates that there is a very high repayment rate and it is possible to serve hundreds of students. The money turns over. Because there is no interest accruing on most of the loans there is a diminishing real value in the loan fund but nevertheless that can be supplemented from time to time to continue to meet this area of need. This is the kind of emergency loan which I am convinced the students of Australia were expecting from the present Government, partially to replace the Liberal Government's $50m loan scheme. But where is it? What has happened to it? Is it in the pipeline? Is it even being investigated? There is no evidence that it is in place. I do not wish to berate the present Government too strongly. I appeal to the Government on behalf of the students of Australia and, indeed, on behalf of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts which made this strong recommendation, that it be urgently considered and that, even before the beginning of the next academic year in 1984, there be a disbursement of funds. So far the Budget for this year has seen about $8m made available. Why not $50m? Why not include moneys for an emergency loan scheme? I do not think honourable senators need to be reminded that there are some students who fall into particularly invidious financial need. Some students fail and need to repeat their studies. If they fail and are repeating their studies to catch up to where they should have been, they are not eligible for the tertiary allowance. Do we not help them through that period? Some students go away for a year and earn some money and then come back and catch up, using their own resources. Some students work part time at a higher rate during that year of catch up and they have the additional burden of employment as well as their studies and the worry that if they fail twice they may not even be able to continue their tertiary studies. How much benefit it would be to them if they had access to even $1,000 which they could repay over the next 18 months or two years without interest accruing. Some students-and perhaps there are some honourable senators who do not have much sympathy for them-come from families whose incomes are beyond the limit of the means test, which precludes them from obtaining the tertiary education allowance. Therefore they do not have any kind of public support for their living needs and at the same time they do not receive any direct financial help from their parents. They are cut out of the living allowance because of their parents' income but in many instances these students do not receive help from their parents. Are we to penalise those students and deny them the opportunity of tertiary study? What they do at the moment is study hard and at the evenings and weekends they gain employment to pay for their studies. These students would be directly helped, particularly in the last year of their studies if they had an emergency loan of $1,000 with the proviso that they paid it back in full out of their earnings when they were employed. There are even some students receiving the tertiary education allowance who have a short term emergency need. They may be tossed out of the flat that they are living in for some reason beyond their control and have to come up with a bond-sometimes $300 or $400-shared by two or three students. Sometimes they have to take on new accommodation. How does an impoverished student find $300 or $400 when he has only got enough for his weekly expenditure? Some students, like other members of the community, suffer theft. If their books are stolen they may immediately have to buy half a dozen books at a cost of $200 or $300. So students face emergencies and I believe that these would best be met by an emergency loan fund, campus based. I am aware, as Senator Peter Baume said earlier this afternoon, that the Beswick report entitled 'Studies of Tertiary Student Finances' recommends in its thorough study of student finances that there be a spectrum of financial resources available to students, including loan schemes of the type we have debated here today. Senator Peter Baume also referred to the decision of the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee that there is a place for student loan schemes to be available to students. I therefore genuinely ask the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) to get the Government to consider the disbursement of moneys for emergency campus based loan schemes even before the beginning of the next academic year. I speak principally for colleges of advanced education and for technical and further education colleges. Student loan schemes have been developed in many of the universities and much of the money on which they were built was disbursed when Mr Kim Beazley was Minister for Education in 1973. That preceded the abolition of fees in the next year. That money has dwindled. Some of that money was given away in grants but the great majority of our tertiary institutions did not receive any of it. Some of them were not in existence then and they were not included in the disbursement. This request is made not just because the Senate Standing Committee recommends it. It is not made just because Beswick recommends it. It is not made just because the vice-chancellors, the chief executive officers of the universities, or the principals of the colleges, would welcome it. It is made because there is an expectation amongst students that the Government will come up with alternative financial resources that will go some way towards the expectations that were created when promises were made at the end of last year and early this year. The Australian and New Zealand Student Services Association, which is the professional association of counsellors, medical persons and career advisers in tertiary education institutions, is currently systematically studying the need for emergency loan schemes. I am sure that its submission to the Government could easily be obtained and it would be up to date. I urge the Minister to consult with the Australian and New Zealand Student Services Association in progressing such a scheme. I make a genuine plea that this debate today not just be one in which we on the Liberal side of the Senate appeal for most senators to support this motion, but also that the Government lift the urgency with regard to genuinely achieving the goals that it has set out with regard to participation, equity, access and all the other bits which without these substantial schemes amount to rhetoric. The student associations of our colleges and universities ought to analyse objectively and carefully the track record of the Fraser Government and that of this Government in the years 1983 and 1984. Under which government would more financial resources have been available to students? The answer is undoubtedly that with the $50m loan scheme there would have been more. Finally, I note that there has been no direct response on behalf of the Government point to point to the recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee in the inquiry to which I referred. Given Senator Button's answer this week that the Government has set its own discipline to respond within three months of a Senate committee report, I hope that there might be in the September sitting a direct response to the nine recommendations and conclusions that are set out in the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts. Senator GILES(Western Australia)(4.38) —As one member of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts which met and heard the evidence in relation to this inquiry into student loan schemes I briefly summarise the evidence and give what I believe is a somewhat more adequate exposition of it than we have just had from the Chairman of that Committee. It is true that the conclusions of that Committee were unanimous. I do not believe that was an unreasonable response in that particular political climate. However, as a result of listening to the evidence I was left with very many serious reservations about the wisdom of the proposed scheme. Certainly, I came to the conclusion that it was inappropriate, at least within the Australian academic system, and it has proven to be inappropriate in many other parts of the world. There were three main grounds on which I based my assessment of its lack of appropriateness. They were equity, educational implications and efficiency. It was quite evident that loans are most attractive to those in least need and who in many cases might take the opportunity to manipulate the scheme to their own advantage. There was even some indication that relatively affluent students might take advantage of a low interest loan, invest it in higher rates of interest and cream off the pickings. Those in most need would be the least likely to take out loans, especially those who cannot be certain that immediately on graduation they can anticipate top level incomes, comfortable incomes or even any sort of income in the sort of economic climate in which we find ourselves. The Treasury was able to estimate for us that the repayment of a $3,000 loan-that would be the amount perhaps that the young person would borrow in $1,000 lots over the three years-would ultimately total $6,720 over its 10 years of repayment. The repayment of a loan perhaps by a medical student of $6, 000 taken out in $1,000 lots over six years would ultimately total $15,480. They may not be stunning amounts for people in our comfortable income brackets, but they are certainly daunting amounts for young people just starting out on their academic careers. Mature students with families, single parents or those anticipating marriage, women especially, cannot undertake such commitments and would not see themselves as making a responsible decision if they did so. According to the submission from the Sydney University Student Representative Council the effect on women students would be very damaging. Women would be less able to repay the debt as even after graduation women earn less than men and have a higher rate of unemployment. In 1980 a survey done at Monash University revealed that 48.5 per cent of women did not believe they could or would be able to make the necessary repayments. The scheme that was being advocated by the Liberal Government excluded part time students, overseas students and students attending technical and further education colleges. The Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology submission which we had before us described the experience of its loan scheme, one which would receive the approbation of Senator Teague and one which I also find quite attractive. But there has been a very low take up of loans over the last few years despite the fact that the students repay no interest in the years in which the loan is made, 5 per cent thereafter to completion of studies and 10 per cent after completion. The submission observed that as times become harder students, especially those from lower socio-economic groups, have greater concerns about entering into debt. Their concern is that without the certainty of a guaranteed income at the end of a course they would be ill-advised to borrow. The educational implications of a loans scheme such as that being advocated can be quite severe. The United State experience has shown that because of the ties between repayments and assistance available to new students under such schemes large numbers of health professionals including 5,000 doctors have prevented adequate assistance to 5,000 prospective health and related students by not refurbishing the loans available by making repayments. Course selection, length of study and whether to pursue tertiary education at all were matters which could be very strongly influenced by accessibility or otherwise to these types of loans. We are also assured by representatives of the student organisations who, I believe, were putting forward a majority point of view on behalf of their constituencies, that there could well be a discouragement of mature age students and a tendency towards short, vocationally oriented courses. These would be the effects of a loans scheme which it was feared would soon be seen as an alternative to needs based grants with liberalised eligibilty. Post-graduate study could be precluded altogether by the need to keep up repayments of loans incurred during initial courses. Retraining might be completely out of the question for somebody who looked forward to 10 years of repayment after graduation, according to one submission that we heard. The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) referred to the high level of default which has been identified in countries where loan schemes have been operating for some years. They are quite stunning in some instances. In all respects they show a quite unsatisfactory state of affairs. The United States Students Association sent information to the effect that there was a 20 per cent default rate in that country. Currently, about one million students are being pursued for being delinquent in their repayments. In the United Kingdom, even under a conservative government, a project to introduce a loans scheme was allocated and dropped twice and that Government refused to explain why. In Ireland a plan was likewise abandoned after it had been estimated that it would take 13 to 14 years before receipts would match outgoings within such a scheme. In Canada there is a 16 per cent default rate. In 1981 one report put total default debts to the Government in Canada at $732m. Sweden, Norway and the Netherlands reported that after 20 years the governments had recouped only 25 per cent, 30 per cent and 11 per cent respectively of the loans expenditure. In Denmark the Government found itself obliged to repay $17m to private banks which had acted as its agents. In 1961 Japan had recouped only 14 per cent of student loan funds, rising to only 20 per cent 10 years later. Is it any wonder that the Australian Bankers Association was much less than enthusiastic about the scheme advocated by the Liberal Government? At the time of the inquiry, which was November 1982, plans were sketchy, to say the least. Administrative costs were unknown. Indeed, there was reluctance within the Australian Bankers Association even to disclose individual charges, let alone actually to let the students or their organisations know what these charges were going to be. Lengthy discussions between student organisations and the bankers' representatives had not reassured any of the parties. Theoretically, bankers would provide loans without discrimination on the basis of first come first served until the funds were exhausted with concern only, they assured us, for the creditworthiness of the individuals concerned. It seemed highly probable, however, that the average bank manager-I believe there are something like 6,000 in Australia-might find it difficult to disregard the usual bankers bias towards well dressed, well spoken students embarking upon lucrative careers, to the detriment of those without such advantages. Senator Walters —Oh! Senator GILES —I do have bank managers amongst my acquaintances as I am sure Senator Walters does. Treasury itself questioned the wisdom of a scheme which could cater for only slightly more than 30 per cent of potential borrowers, anticipating a demand for these low interest loans which the student organisations strongly questioned. There were, on our reckoning, something like 15,000 eligible students in Australia and certainly no more than 5,000 would have been able in each year to gain the maximum loan of $1,000. The Department of Education acknowledged the need for financial counselling seen as essential by the student organisations but offered no assistance to provide this counselling. The provision of funds for such a loan in a climate, as I would remind honourable senators, in which there was perennial anxiety about the cessation of the tertiary education assistance scheme and the introduction of tertiary fees, was certainly better than nothing. I assure the Senate that it was on that basis that the unanimous report was issued. But students and their parents have long memories. They know that the Fraser years were ones of increasing hardship and disincentive towards tertiary education. They know of the Labor Party's long term commitment to the expansion of opportunity. We regret the necessity of not being able to make a bigger contribution toward student assistance this year but of having to move modestly. At the risk of being tedious, I remind the Senate again of the $9.5 billion deficit which was left for us to sort out some how or other. The extra $33m in student assistance funding in this Budget will assist 8,500 students, as against the maximum of 5, 000 students who would have been assisted under the loans scheme. It is useful, I expect, to be reminded by Senator Teague that a comparison between the well-being of students in 1983 and 1984 might be of long term value to this Government. I think it might be more useful if we had a look back to 1978, 1979 and 1980, or even all the years before the advent of the present Labor Government and noted the mood of depression, dejection and dispiriting demoralisation that was endemic within all the tertiary institutions as they felt the Fraser crunch on their funding. I know that Senator Teague will be comforted and very pleased to hear that the Tertiary Education Commission has been requested to report to the Minister on the adequacy of the scheme introduced in 1973 by Kim Beazley, to which he referred, by which tertiary institutions were provided with funds for genuine emergency cases. As the honourable senator commented quite correctly, this arrangement tends to be highly efficient. Considerable concern is shown for the educational implications of such loans. There is a high rate of repayment and sensitive counselling is provided. I have no hesitation in agreeing with the honourable senator that this is the way we should go. Senator ZAKHAROV(Victoria)(4.51) —It is ironical to find this motion standing in the name of a senator who was a Minister in the Government whose razor gang cuts in tertiary funding produced one of the most widely supported student protests of recent years. I was involved in this area so I can vouch for that. The Australian Union of Students then spearheaded a strong campaign in opposition to the previous Government's student loans scheme and this was very strongly supported by tertiary students, both present and future-of course, at that time students in secondary schools were also affected as potential tertiary students-all over Australia. There were very good reasons for this widely based opposition to the loan scheme, by staff in tertiary institutions as well as students. Probably the most cogent reason was that a loans scheme is inherently discriminatory against those who most need help, particularly in a situation of scarce employment opportunities. I can assure honourable senators that it is a myth that all graduates immediately find any sort of employment, let alone well paid employment. It is unlikely that students without assets or the prospect of financial support in the case of future unemployment would want to take up a loan with no guarantee of being able to repay it. On the other hand, a student who entered lightly into such a loan may be forced to default, like it or not, after graduation. The majority of beneficiaries of such a student loans scheme are likely, then, to be those in least need of help-those, for example, whose parents could afford to assist them, if necessary, in repaying a loan. Thus, the loans scheme was likely to make the opportunity of higher education further weighted towards the more privileged sections of the community, as Senator Ryan has explained. Senator Giles has detailed how student loans schemes overseas have suffered a high rate of default. Since the Government was to be the guarantor for loans, the need to pay students' debts would have led to cuts in other sections of the education budget. There was widespread fear, too, among students, parents and tertiary staff that the introduction of student loans was the thin end of the wedge, that the dismantling of the tertiary education assistance scheme would follow, partly for the reason I just mentioned of having to finance defaults but also because that would have accorded with the previous Government's philosophy that the user pays. If Senator Peter Baume were justified in his belief that students have been disadvantaged by what he terms the discontinuance of student loans-and incidentally, I do not believe one can discontinue something which has not started and I trust that the honourable senator did not intend to imply that actual loans had been discontinued-- Senator Teague —But the scheme was started. Senator ZAKHAROV —That is not the wording of the motion. If that belief were justified we might have expected a wave of protest from students when the scheme was abandoned. That has not happened. I certainly have received no letters or phone calls of protest. Neither have any of the many tertiary and secondary students I know expressed any sorrow over the demise of the scheme. Finally, I point out that many campuses have money available for the sorts of loans that Senator Teague was talking about. The Commonwealth Banking Corporation offers campus loans with interest deferred in full until graduation. Alternatives are available for those who are lucky enough to be able to take them up. The only way to provide access to tertiary education for all sections of society is through the tertiary education assistance scheme. These living allowances enable students to survive, although frugally, without a debt hanging over their heads. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The time allotted under the sessional order relating to consideration of General Business having expired, the Senate will proceed to further consideration of Government Business. In case honourable senators are surprised at the somewhat curious hour at which consideration of General Business has ended, I point out that under the sessional order, General Business has precedence for 2 1/2 hours from 2.15 p.m. This is the last day of the use of that particular sessional order. With the agreement of the Government and the Opposition I allowed an extra 10 minutes for consideration of General Business to compensate for the time taken up by the ministerial statement and the responses to it. Report and Ministerial Statement Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs) —I table the report of the Committee of Review into the Impact of Radford College-Volume 1. I seek leave to make a ministerial statement in connection with this report. Leave granted. Senator RYAN —The Committee of Review into the Impact of Radford College was set up on 19 April this year to inquire into the impact of the new Anglican school on other schools in the Australian Capital Territory. The decision of the previous Government to provide capital funds for the college had provoked considerable controversy in the community and I decided it would be best if the issues involved could be studied and discussed in a comprehensive manner. The Committee was representative of the education community in the Australian Capital Territory. Its chairperson was Dr Don Anderson, a professorial fellow at the Australian National University who has had an involvement in the development of Australian Capital Territory education for many years. Two other members of the Committee had interests in independent schools and two had had long involvement in State school education through parent organisations. Other members were a leading trade unionist who was a member of the Interim Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority, appointed to the position by the previous Government in February 1978, the Secretary of the Commonwealth Schools Commission, and an Assistant Secretary of my Department. The terms of reference asked the Committee to review plans for the development of Radford College and to assess its impact on existing Australian Capital Territory schools. The Committee was directed to have regard to the Government's commitment to equal educational opportunities for all Australian children and to the maintenance and development of comprehensive, high quality government school systems. In undertaking this task the Committee was asked to identify ways in which principles that had emerged in the course of this review should be given further consideration. In addition, the Committee was asked to report on the following four specific questions: How the impact of the proposed school on existing Australian Capital Territory schools can be assessed and monitored, and how any disruptive effects can be avoided; the level of fees that will be charged at the school and how it can be ensured that the school is accessible to the general community; the compatibility of resource levels of the school and those available in government schools; and in the development and approval of its educational program and the certification of students, the means by which the school may function in accordance with existing Australian Capital Territory arrangements. The Committee made 27 recommendations, all of which were unanimous. A number of the recommendations relate to the future planning of education in the Australian Capital Territory and the involvement of the community in that planning. I believe strongly in the importance of the greatest possible community involvement in education, including planning. I welcome the public discussion which the report has already promoted on these subjects. Some misconceptions have arisen as a result of the report, however. Concerning the issue of integration, which was raised in the Committee's report, I would like to make it clear that this Government has no intention of pursuing a policy of integrating non-government schools with government schools. The other recommendations will be examined by the Government, with the benefit of community input, before the Government responds to those recommendations. Problems in making a sufficient number of copies of the main report available to the public have been experienced. I am advised that an adequate supply will once again be available early next week. The deadline for the submission of community comment on the report has already been extended to enable thorough public discussion. If further problems with the availability of the report occur , I will be happy to extend the deadline again. Some advance copies of Volume II , the appendixes to the report, are now being distributed to organisations and printed copies of that volume will be made available as soon as possible. I present the following paper: Committee of Review into the Impact of Radford College-Ministerial Statement, 25 August 1983. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(5.01) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the papers. The Opposition welcomes the statement not least because it gives enormous relief to a community worried about the question of the integration of non-government school with government schools. Some matters in relation to the statement of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) need to be discussed and comment upon them is necessary. I direct the Minister's attention to her own words which appeared in the Canberra Times this morning-I also want to draw attention to an editorial which appeared in that newspaper earlier this year-in which she is quite critical of the activities of some members in the community and the campaign they have waged. The fact is that members of the Canberra community who have spoken publicly to try to put to bed the question of the integration of government schools with non-governemnt schools have been successful in their campaign. It has been a highly successful exercise. I have no doubt that what the citizens of the Australian Capital Territory have done in raising this issue and in brining it to the attention of the people has played no small part in bringing about this response from the Government and especially in bringing it about today. I have no doubt that the Government has directed its Minister to make this statement to put this issue to rest. The report of the Committee of Review into the Impact of Radford College is very important. It has been a very sorry story. The school we are discussing, the proposed new Radford Grammar School, is to be established by a free association of citizens exercising their right of association to form a new school for the education of children. The establishment of the Radford Committee or the Anderson Committee, whatever honourable senators want to call it, which produced the report, was one measure to make the exercise of that right by those citizens more difficult. There is no doubt that the establishment of this Committee has made the establishment of Radford College more difficult to achieve. It has made it more difficult for all those associated with Radford College to see their dream come to fruition. After all, before the election-indeed, during the time I was the Minister for Education-the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority completed and presented a report on the impact of a third grammar school in Canberra. That report was made available for public discussion. A report has already been prepared on the impact of the new grammar school. We had a report about what it would do to enrolments. We had a report about what it would do to the existing schools in the Belconnen region. We knew that information. If the Minister was seeking that information she had only to examine existing documents to find it out immediately. In case she does not remember, the advice which we received at that time was the establishment of Radford College as a third grammar school would bring forward by two years the date on which certain high schools with declining populations might reach one of the decision points at which the Schools Authority would have to decide either to consolidate their activities or make some other decisions about their future. That date would have been brought forward from 1995 to 1993. But we already know that. It was in the light of that knowledge and in the light of the determination of the Anglican synod and Anglican parents-I think at that stage 2,000 parents had registered their interest-that we certainly approved, supported, endorsed and provided money for the construction of Radford College. Honourable senators may recall that at that stage the members of the Trades and Labour Council in the Australian Capital Territory decided to mount a picket line to prevent the school being built which the parents wanted for their children. In the week before the election the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) promised that Radford College would be built. Anyone hearing the statement that Radford College would be built might have been excused for understanding it to mean that Radford College could go ahead; that the Australian Labor Party did not intend to put any impediments in the way of the establishment or operation of this school, but that was not the case. I understand that a legal opinion was sought as to whether or not the money could be withheld. Then a decision was made and Press reports that the Government did not intend to seek that option, appeared. This Committee was established to examine certain matters about Radford College and certain other matters which go more widely to non-government options in education in every State and Territory of Australia. It is desirable to look at this report, to look at the people who have written it, to look at the value positions it espouses and say to the Government, 'We are delighted to hear what you say about integration but that is only one part of what this report addresses'. People will be looking to a whole range of other answers concerning the Radford Committee report. It is all very well to say that it is not the Government's intention to proceed with integration. There was plenty of reason for people to be concerned. I remind the Senate once again that the Australian Labor Party in the Australian Capital Territory formulated in 1982 a policy which it released this year. That policy talked about an integrated public system of education. I will quote what the ALP produced and promulgated within the Australian Capital Territory-not federally but here in the Territory: The present division of schooling into government and subsidised private schools is inefficient, maintains inequality, generates conflict and division and its perpetuation is not in the best interests of the children of Australia. I repeat, 'its perpetuation is not in the best interests of the children of Australia'. The document goes on to say: An ALP Government would establish procedures to enable private schools to integrate into a restructured public school system. All schools within this integrated public system would be fully financed from public sources, would not charge fees, and would be fully accountable for the expenditures of money. The document states, in conclusion: Schools which choose to remain outside the integrated public system would not be entitled to any public funds or benefits. In the light of the existence of that document and its association with the Australian Capital Territory division of the Labor Party and the later emergence of these committee recommendations, which go right down the same track, is there any wonder that citizens' groups and parents in the Territory were worried? Senator Teague —Alarmed. Senator PETER BAUME —Citizens in the Australian Capital Territory were alarmed and the public meetings which were held bear witness to the extent of their alarm and concern. But the alarm went wider, if I may say so through you, Mr Deputy President, to my colleague Senator Teague, because the proposals have national implications. They could be used to direct the conditions under which the Commonwealth would fund any non-government schools anywhere in Australia. Mr Deputy President, I was interested in the value position of the Labor Party. I thought honourable senators would be interested in knowing also of some of the contents of an address to the Victorian Fabian Conference in April this year by Dr Don Anderson, who was the Chairman of the Radford Committee. I will simply read, without much comment, some of the things he said, as reported in the Journal of Advanced Education of 20 July 1983. We will see whether anyone reading these comments would have concern about the report and what it might mean. Dr Anderson says: If secondary education is to be reformed into a system which provides for voluntary, majority participation to Year 12 or its equivalent, the burden will have to be carried mainly by the public sector. The task is made more difficult by the existence of a private sector which skims the cream off the operation . . . A condition of public funding to private schools should be that the operation of the recipient school should in no way detract from the operation of public education in its region . . . Even in normal times private schools detract from the public education by skimming off some of the best teachers, some of the more able pupils and most of the powerful and articulate parents who, if they were in the public sector, would be influential in demanding reform. At the present time , when the public schools are under tremendous pressure their undermining by private schools is particularly serious. Given the content of that Fabian address, I would say the appointment of Dr Anderson as Chairman of the Committee more or less predicated in advance what kind of report we would get. The contents of the report are entirely consistent with the sentiments expressed by Dr Anderson and with those expressed in the ALP policy paper formulated a couple of years ago. Of course people in the Australian Capital Territory were concerned; of course they were alarmed. They do not trust this Government's approach to non-government schools; they do not trust what it intends to do and they do not trust its intentions in regard to the Radford report. How was the report received? Let us look at some of the Press comments. I refer to what the Canberra Times had to say in July, after the report appeared. However, the most worrying thing about this whole exercise has been the total disregard by this Government of public interest. Today, at 2 o'clock, we called the Australian Government Publishing Service to make inquiries about the availability of this report, on which the Minister wants public discussion. She has acknowledged something about the lack of copies. As of today, the Publishing Service has a slim volume-volume III, which is a summary giving the findings but none of the arguments. It has never sighted volumes I and II. People in the Australian Capital Territory have not been able to purchase volumes I and II of this report. The honourable senator is tabling a volume today. People in the Australian Capital Territory have not been able to buy a copy. Today the Government's Publishing Service did not have it. Volume II, which contains the tables which people might want to examine to test some of the propositions and look at some of the evidence and the special papers, is not available. It has not been available. I put it to the Minister that it is impossible for her to put any kind of date on the receipt of submissions until she can first guarantee that all three volumes will be made available to the public. I have been unable to obtain volume II. I have no idea of its contents. I have been unable to test them. The honourable senator has not done the Parliament the courtesy of giving us access to the three volumes which make up this report. The Government has chosen to hold these volumes to itself. The existence of volume III is not enough for public discussion to occur. Senator Ryan —They are available. They will be made public as soon as they come off the printing press. Senator PETER BAUME —The honourable senator says that they will be made available as soon as they come off the press. I put it to the honourable senator that she cannot even conceive of cutting down the time for response until she knows that volumes I and II have been out for sufficient time for people to be able to make a response. Those volumes are not available now. People are not able to respond. It would be quite unthinkable for the Government to proceed to any consideration of this matter until volume II, in particular, is out and available. That is not within sight. Volume II contains the appendices and the factual material upon which the committee's recommendations were based. Until we have that we cannot test what seem to us to be some very strange assumptions. I am delighted to have noted in the last few days in the Press that it was Mrs Kelly and Mr Whalan from the Labor side who led the denunciations of the idea of integration. I am delighted that Senator Ryan, as an Australian Capital Territory representative, has finally decided to follow suit. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(5.18) —The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) and the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes), who are sitting opposite, regard this matter with some mirth and irresponsibility. Senator Grimes —It is you we regard with mirth. Senator Ryan —But you still have not read the report. Senator TEAGUE —They say they regard me with mirth. I am sure there is a certain degree of truth in that because, as one of the Ministers said, I have not read the report of the committee of review into the impact of Radford College. I have not been able to obtain a copy. I have not been supplied with a copy of volumes I, II or III. The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs said in her statement that some advance copies of volume II are being distributed to organisations. Why are they not being distributed in this Parliament? How can this statement be sensibly received by the Parliament when we do not have copies of volumes I, II and III? I understand the degree of mirth on that point, but I do not understand the mirth about the issue itself-the concern of hundreds of parents in the Australian Capital Territory who are constituents of the Minister who is one of the senators representing the Australian Capital Territory. I cannot on their behalf, or on behalf of the people of the States who are interested in the same questions, make any sensible remarks. Therefore, I only note on behalf of the thousands of parents and families in the Australian Capital Territory who are concerned about choice in education that a victory for parents is implied in this statement. The victory for parents and democracy is that this Government's intentions can be reversed. The parents have had a victory. The parents have been alerted to something of the substance of these reports before they are presented. They have formed associations in the suburbs of the Australian Capital Territory. Seven hundred people attended one meeting and 900 people attended another. Was the Minister present? Did the Minister put a view to those hostile constituents of hers? The parents who attended those meetings, the parents who represent thousands of concerned families in the Australian Capital Territory, have had a victory. This victory proves that the Government is a paper tiger on matters where minority ideology, taken up by some influential members of the Government, can be reversed if parents and families get up and speak out for the choice that they wish in education. I can only note that the substance of the statement which the Minister has made-this is the victory which the parents have won-is this: . . . I would like to make it clear that this Government has no intention of pursuing a policy of integrating non-government schools with government schools. The Government is bound by the statement. The Government is saying that the principal finding of this Australian Capital Territory inquiry into Radford College has been rejected by the Government despite ideology, Australian Labor Party policy in the Australian Capital Territory and the unanimous finding of the Anderson report. I can only advise the parents and families of the Australian Capital Territory and the parents and families of Australia to take cheer from this reversal by a government that is a paper tiger. If enough arguments, logic, evidence and public expression are put to this Government it can reverse even its own ideology. Therefore, I say to the parents and families of Australia: Take cheer from this example; keep it up and remain outspoken for choice in education. Even here in the home Territory of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, Senator Susan Ryan, the parents have had a victory and I applaud them. Senator Ryan —You still have not read the report. Senator TEAGUE —No, I still have not read the report. I would like to read it. I ask the Minister: When will I, as an ordinary senator, receive copies of volumes I and II? When will I, as a member of the Senate, be given a copy to read? Perhaps more will flow from this. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(5.24) —The three Ministers opposite are behaving in the most irresponsible and abominable fashion in which I have ever seen Ministers behave. The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) has not had the courtesy to have copies of the report into the impact of Radford College forwarded to Senator Teague. The Minister knows darn well that Senator Teague has been very interested in education ever since he became a member of the Senate. He has been a member of the Standing Committee on Education and the Arts and on joint committees dealing with education matters. The Minister has not had the decency to send him a copy of the two volumes which are available. The Minister sat there, with the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) and the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). She threw her head back, laughed and said: 'If you do not know about the report, if you have not seen it, sit down and do not talk about it'. What an appalling statement from a Minister in the Senate. She has not had the decency to forward the two available volumes of the report to honourable senators who are interested in this portfolio. What sort of a Minister is she? As has already been said, volume II is still not available and yet is the factual part of the Radford report but we have not seen it. If the Minister wants a certain result from a committee then she knows who to put on that committee as members, and this is exactly what she did and she got the report she desired. However, that Minister was rolled once again in Caucus. She did not get her way. She has been rolled before. She did not get her affirmative action with the Bill on sex discrimination. She did not get her way with combat duty for women in the armed forces. Again she did not get her way in the Caucus vote. I am highly delighted that she did not. It was rather nice to hear her say that the Government would not go along with a policy of integrating non-government schools with government schools. It seems to me that whenever Senator Ryan is opposed by the community she refers to that as hysteria. I have never seen a Minister more hysterical. She was throwing her arms around and pointing to Senator Peter Baume. That is how she behaved in the chamber today. The fact that she sat here, having not made the volumes available, having originally had only 100 copies of volumes I and III printed and not even having the decency to have volume II printed and made available to us is, I believe, completely irresponsible. At least the Attorney-General had the decency during the recess to ring those honourable senators who he knew were interested in the Family Law Amendment Bill to alert them to the fact that it would be debated the first day we were back. I appreciate his consideration in alerting me to the fact that it would be-- Senator Gareth Evans —I wish there had been a bit of a quid pro quo. Senator WALTERS —The honourable senator may regret his courtesy. He could teach Senator Ryan a thing or two about courtesy. If she had had a similar amount of courtesy every member of the Committee from this side of the chamber would have received from her Department of Education and Youth Affairs copies of those two reports and would be the first to receive a copy of volume II. Senator Harradine —How much did the bodgie report cost? Senator WALTERS —No doubt in Estimates we will be able to ask that question. I have risen to my feet galled by the way those Ministers opposite have behaved in the most irresponsible and rude fashion I have ever seen Ministers behave in this place. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(5.27) —Last night I raised this matter during the adjournment debate because I felt it was of such importance and that the community was so concerned about the issues that the Government should respond and should tell the community what it thinks, particularly on the matter of integration. I am pleased to note that the Government has now responded and has told the community that it will not be proceeding with the integration. Senator Ryan —Did you not read the Canberra Times this morning? Senator REID —I did read the Canberra Times this morning but it was not available last night when I spoke on the adjournment. I also said last night that I thought the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) should tell the community what her personal views are on some of these very significant matters because the public meetings which I attended indicated very clearly that, in the one case more than 700 parents and in the other case more than 900 parents, spoke with one voice on the question of integration and the funding of the non-government school system. The fact that the non-government schools system cost a great deal less for the Government to fund than if all those children were in the government school system seems to be totally overlooked by those who wish to destroy the non-government school system. The attitude of the Minister is clear as to what she really thinks about the non-government school system by the guidelines that she issued in July and which were tabled in this place this morning, and in relation to which some discussion took place. I think it flows from that that the Government has no intention of maintaining choice in education and seeing that all children receive some funding. There seems to be some concept of discussion of wealthy schools. I am not concerned about that; I am concerned about children and the quality of education that we offer them. I believe it is a mistake to look at real estate and other assets when what we are concerned about is the welfare and the quality of the education that we are offering to children in all the schools in this country, government and non-government. It is a matter of great sorrow to me to find in the appropriation papers that have been presented this week, that the Australian Capital Territory government education system has had its funding cut and has not maintained the level of funding last year with the rate of inflation taken into account. I think I raised most of the matters last night that I wished to in relation to these issues. The question of integration is important. It needed to be denounced, and I hope that that is not just a temporary announcement that we will have to live with from time to time. The Minister paid me the courtesy of sending me volumes I and III immediately they were available. I certainly appreciate that. I did not realise that other people had not had them. It became apparent from letters I received in my electorate office that a number of members of the community were very interested in what was in volumes I and II. As we know volume II is still not available, but anybody who has read volume I knows that it is necessary to have the information, which is presumably in volume II, to understand fully the reasoning behind the recommendations. It is also very necessary to have volume I to understand the recommendations. Some of the implications of those are not apparent at face value. It is only by reading the chapters concerned that one gets the full drift of what is in the small phrase, which is the recommendation itself. For that reason I strongly recommend that nobody should read volume III on its own but be sure that they have volume I as well. The Minister has said that she has extended the time for public comment from the end of August until the end of September, and quite rightly. My view is that it must be further extended as they are lengthy volumes. They take a lot of reading. It is not just a question of a parent responding. Groups of parents, as parents in schools, wish to discuss these matters together and respond. I think it is quite improper to suggest that there be a deadline for the response until at least two months from when people who are interested have had an opportunity to look at all three volumes. I ask the Minister seriously, if she is concerned about the community's views on this, to allow them a proper time in which to comment on the issues which have been raised. They are very serious and dear to the hearts of many people in this community who are concerned about the education of children. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.33) —As I mentioned this morning I have not had a high profile on these educational debates. However, I have been forced to reconsider my position by virtue of the outrageous statement that was tabled in the Parliament today-the quite insulting paper to a large section of the Australian community. I warned the Government that unless it reviewed the statement and came back to undertakings that were given prior to the last election and maintained the nexus as part of the educational justice that is required, to which parents of students in non-government schools are entitled, there would be public accountability at the next election. I am not afraid to say that I would go the length and breadth of Australia to fight this issue. Once one takes a publicly accountable nexus away from the whole system of education funding one leaves it at the whim of the Minister for Education, whoever it may be. I for one am not prepared to leave funding of education or justice in education to the whim of any education Minister of any government, much less to the current Minister for Education and Youth Affairs ( Senator Ryan). She revealed her true colours in her statement reported in the Canberra Times this morning. I will read to the Senate part of that statement. She said: ''But I think it is pretty amazing that an independent committee brings down a report for public discussion, and people start organising hysterical campaigns . . . An independent committee; what a lot of hogwash. The Committee of Review into the Impact of Radford College was established by the Minister, its members handpicked by the Minister, to come up with this result. She does not deny that. It is not only members of that Committee that she has handpicked to come up with that result; there are other committees, including the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority. I have in my hand a copy of an information paper from that Authority which indicates quite clearly that it has been in cahoots with the Chairman of the Radford Inquiry Committee. The introduction to the information paper says as much. It states: While the analyses were being prepared, the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs established a committee to review the future operation of the Radford College and requested that the work of the committee be assisted by the Authority. This gives this paper its second purpose. It went on to refer to the various questions on which the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority held discussions with the Radford Inquiry Committee Chairman. So that nobody is under any misapprehension that this is a far reaching rort in which the white wine whingers get together and try to deny education justice to a vast number of Australian parents, I will quote from what the Authority stated in this information paper. At page 37 there is a paragraph headed 'Government-initiated changes', with a sub-heading 'Selectivity of subsidised schools'. That is an insult. The Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority paper is entitled 'Relationships Between Public and Subsidised Schools in the ACT and Some Options for Development of Relationships for the Future'. What an insult that is, unless of course it means that the non-government schools are heavily subsidised by the parents who sent their kids to those schools at great sacrifice. The insulting statement of 'public and subsidised schools' comes from the Minister's Authority. Let us not forget that this will be a real issue amongst the people of Australia. This sort of insult will not be countenanced. I return to what the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority, after consulting the Radford Inquiry Committee, had to say. At page 37, under ' Selectivity of subsidised schools', it states: The antipathy towards subsidised schools stemming from the proposition that taxpayers' money should not be provided to selective schools is not a problem that has a direct impact on the operations of the Authority. It does, however, create an attitudinal climate that constrains the number and nature of options for co-operation and interaction open to the Authority. Currently all subsidised schools registered by the appropriate state or territorial government agency are eligible to receive grants provided directly to them by the Commonwealth for recurrent resources, capital resources and loan interest subsidisation. There is no compelling reason for this nexus. That is what is stated. That is what it is all about. If the nexus is broken, justice goes down the drain. One is at the whim of the Education Minister. Senator Lewis —Who has left the chamber. Senator HARRADINE —She has darted out of the chamber. It states: Commonwealth funding policies could be changed so that Commonwealth resources are no longer directly provided to subsidised schools, or are provided on conditions stipulated by the government. Later it states: Schools unwilling to accept such conditions would still be free to operate, but their resources would be restricted to funds they were able to raise privately together with any funds that might be provided to them from a relevant state government with a policy different to that of the Commonwealth government. In this way there would be freedom in being able to establish and operate non- public schools, and people's right to select a school of their choice would not be infringed. What a lot of bull. Of course, the rights of the parents are infringed dramatically by the blackmail guidelines of this Government, which were outlined in the documents put down by the Minister today and have been developed by her and by her lackeys in these committees over a period. To come back to the Minister's statement in the Canberra Times this morning, she is reported to have said that she was amazed at the fact that 'an independent committee brings down a report for public discussion, and people start organising hysterical campaigns . . .' There were 900 people at the last meeting, to which she was given an invitation to attend, but to which she did not reply. Senator Lewis —And which she denied receiving. Senator HARRADINE —I did not hear her deny receiving it. She did ask me whether I knew that she had one and I said yes. The Canberra Times report continues: Asked why she had not made an announcement about the integration issue until yesterday, she said, ''I was waiting for public debate before I made a detailed response . . .'' On the one hand, she criticises the public debate. On the other hand, she says that she has been waiting for it. The report then states: She was pleased to see so much debate going on about the education issue, but was somewhat suspicious about the motives of some organisers of the recent meetings in the Australian Capital Territory. ''I think they've got a lot to do with undermining the Labor Government'', she said. That also is arrant nonsense and, if any people in the Labor Party fall for that -particularly those people who were responsible, prior to the last election, for having Chris Hurford give certain undertakings which the Minister has now breached-they ought to have another think. She went on to her favourite subject- more favourite than the education issue-and said that one such meeting also included in its resolutions a criticism of the sex discrimination legislation. That makes one think, does it not? That statement certainly made many people think because the Sex Discrimination Bill applies to non-government schools in the Territories, which includes the Australian Capital Territory. It would apply also to all non-government schools in the States if the convention came into effect in the States. But let us deal with the Territories. It makes one think does it not? Let us see what the situation would be. The Sex Discrimination Bill, about which some people were concerned because they had been ridden roughshod over by the so- called education authorities, would make unlawful discrimination by a non- government schools authority on the grounds of sex or marital status, which includes the status of de facto relationships or pregnancy. It would apply in the Territories to discrimination against men or women. This is the key question . The Bill would prevent a non-government school from being able to ensure that it employs teachers whose values and philosophies are in harmony with the school 's aims and objectives. I suggest that is not only inconsistent with the overwhelming desire of parents who send their children to those schools, but it is inconsistent with the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It certainly makes one think, does it not? The Minister had better have another think before she starts categorising all of those people who express legitimate concern as being hysterical. Finally, the Minister said that naturally there are some people in the Australian Capital Territory who are very opposed to the Labor Government and its reform policies. She said that she is seen to be a progressive within the Government and so people are using the education debate to whip up anti- Government feeling. If that is the level of the Minister's intellectual capacity and her contribution to this debate it is time she resigned. In fact, it is a wonder that she has not resigned because she was highly in favour of what the Radford Inquiry recommended. The Committee was handpicked. It made wide-ranging recommendations which, had they been carried into policy, would have had an effect not only in the Australian Capital Territory but also throughout the length and breadth of Australia. What did the Minister do? She handpicked the members of that Committee. Was a representative of the largest non-government school system on that Committee? No. She certainly did not appoint a representative from that group. Of course, the recommendations would have destroyed that largest non-government education system. It would have destroyed the integrity of that system and undermined the justice to which parents of children attending those schools are entitled. Mr President, I conclude by saying that the Minister has now been forced by some cooler heads in the Government to distance the Government from the recommendations of that Committee. We do not know the cost of producing the report of that Committee or the amount of white wine that was consumed to put up the recommendations. Senator Grimes —That is an offensive remark. Senator HARRADINE —Canberra is full of it. Senator Grimes —Let us talk about the white wine you drink at dinner here at night. Senator HARRADINE —I do not drink white wine, to be quite frank. The Labor Government increased the excise on the only thing that I do like a bit of. I have talked about white wine whingers and Volvo socialists before tonight. That is what half of this crowd are. There is not a genuine Labor bloke amongst them. Certainly there was no representative on that body from the system which those far-reaching recommendations would have destroyed. The members were handpicked. The Minister has now been forced to distance the Government from those recommendations. If the Minister had any decency she would resign because the proposals are hers. The people who made them are her selecteers. The report has now been rubbished by the Government. How then can we in this Parliament give any credence to anything that the Minister will say in the future. Question resolved in the affirmative. The PRESIDENT —I shall now proceed to the discovery of formal business. The first matter is Business of the Senate, notice of motion No. 1, standing in the name of Senator Harradine for the disallowance of certain regulations. Senator Gareth Evans-I rise on a point of order, Mr President, in relation to Senator Harradine's motion. The point of order is that it is not competent for the Senate to entertain this motion. The terms of the motion state: That the World Heritage (Western Tasmania Wilderness) Regulations, as contained in Statutory Rules 1983 No. 31 and made under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975, be disallowed. The reality of the situation is that those regulations no longer exist. In fact, as a matter of law, they never did exist because they were beyond the competence of the Executive to promulgate as was so held in the Tasmanian dams case. Senator Harradine is asking us to debate whether regulations which no longer exist and, indeed, which never did exist, should be disallowed. The Standing Orders of this place make it competent for the Senate to entertain motions of this kind only when they relate to the disallowance of a regulation. Alternatively, to the extent that they enable the Senate to entertain such a motion they do not, I suggest, allow the Senate to give precedence to such a motion ahead of Government Business, the reason being that within the strict language of Standing Order No. 119 we are not here dealing with a motion for the disallowance of a regulation. Whatever we are dealing with it is not the disallowance of a regulation because there is no regulation that could possibly be disallowed. Lest there be any doubt about that state of affairs, Mr President, I mention to you the circumstances in which the High Court of Australia produced the result that it did. The regulations in question were made, of course, pursuant to section 69 of the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975. They were declared to be wholly invalid-of course, other aspects of that legislation were not so declared-by a majority of the High Court in its decision handed down on 31 July 1983, well after Senator Harradine originally gave notice of this motion . The Chief Justice, Sir Harry Gibbs, and Justices Wilson and Dawson found that section 69 was not supported in relevant respect by the external affairs power. The fourth judge to constitute the majority on this point, Mr Justice Deane, found that the regulations as they had been amended by the later World Heritage Properties Consevation Act involved an acquisition of property without the provision of just terms. So what was being held here was that the regulations were invalid for want of power to enact them in the first place. The situation is to be distinguished from that which prevails when a Commonwealth law overrides a State law for inconsistency under section 109 of the Constitution. There it is invalidity of a different sort because the State law in question is capable of revival, of springing back to life, in the event that the Commonwealth law is subsequently repealed or otherwise ruled out of order. But here the regulations simply never did exist. They existed, of course, to the extent that they were written down, printed and circulated. To that extent they appear, in a sense, on the statute book. But equally the effect of the High Court decision was to make their existence something which was purely of a physical kind. They simply did not exist as a matter of law and when that statute book or those regulations are reprinted, the regulations in question will in fact not be reprinted because they will no longer exist-in fact they never have. That is exactly, of course, what happens when regulations are disallowed. They have a life for a time but when they are disallowed they no longer exist. What we are being asked to do is to disallow something which simply does not exist in any tangible form at the moment. I put it to you, Mr President, that we would be faced with a quite farcical situation were this motion allowed to proceed. We would have those supporting the motion arguing that regulations which do not exist should be disallowed and we would have those on this side of the chamber opposing the motion, no doubt because they wanted the spirit of the regulations to linger on, if not their flesh, arguing that regulations which do not exist should nonetheless not be disallowed. With respect, Mr President, whatever else might be involved in the conduct of proceedings in this chamber it would reduce those proceedings to low farce and be quite inconsonant with whatever dignity the Australian Parliament retains for us to embark upon an enterprise of that particular kind. Medieval theologians used to debate how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. That would look a positively simple exercise by camparison with the kind of metaphysics which would be involved in this case. Senator Harradine-Mr President, I rise on a point of order. The Attorney- General is now debating the issue and not speaking to the point of order. The PRESIDENT —I ask the Attorney-General to confine his remarks to the point of order. Senator Gareth Evans-I make a final point, Mr President. There will be plenty more opportunities to debate the particular subject matter, as there have been in the past, that no doubt is intended to be debated in the course of this disallowance exercise. To that extent, any discretion you may feel you have should, I believe, consonant with the dignity of this place, be exercised in the way that I have suggested. The Standing Orders are clear. There are three references only to motions for the disallowance of regulations. They appear in standing orders 109A, 119 and 133. I put it to you, Mr President, that none of those standing orders is applicable to a situation where you have something which is not and never has been a regulation. It is both competent for you to rule it out of order and in the interests of preserving proper decorum and sensible debate in this place I put it to you that you should rule it out of order. Senator Lewis-All I want to do at this stage is to ask the Attorney-General a question. It seems to me that he keeps saying that the regulations do not exist. I ask him whether it would not be possible for the Government to amend the existing regulations? He keeps saying that they do not exist but as I understand it they have really just been declared invalid. To me there is a tremendous difference between something which is invalid and something which does not exist . If they are regulations which have been properly made, surely they could, for example, be amended at some stage. Surely it would be possible to amend them to make them valid and enforceable. It just seems to me that we cannot say that they do not exist when it would be possible to amend them. Senator Missen-I should like to speak to this point of order. I agree with both Senator Evans and with Senator Lewis so far as this matter is concerned. There is soundness in what they have both said. The regulations do not exist as a part of the law of the Commonwealth at present. They cannot be enforced. They are just on a piece of paper and the High Court of Australia has found, by a majority of four to three, that as they stand, they are invalid. I cannot say, in all my reading of the judgments, that I spent very much time in worrying about the regulations because they had been found invalid and were no longer significant. But they could, of course, be amended. Senator Gareth Evans-You would have to start all over again; a new regulation. Senator Missen-Yes. You could put in a new regulation which covered just compensation and so forth. The significance of this motion being moved, as I see it, is to be found in section 50 of the Acts Interpretation Act. That section sets out the effect of the repealing of regulations. Section 49 sets out the effect of a disallowed regulation. More particularly, section 49 states: . . . any regulation is deemed to have been disallowed, 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 the disallowance, unless it is permitted by the Houses. I can imagine that the only significance of the motion which Senator Harradine has proposed-I think it is mostly mischievous to bring up again a completely useless debate on Tasmania; there are plenty of good matters that we can talk about in relation to Tasmania- Senator Harradine-I have not opened my mouth about it. I gave it before the- Senator Missen-I know, but the honourable senator has not withdrawn it. Senator Harradine-No, and I do not intend to. Senator Missen-I know. I thank the honourable senator for confirming my worst suspicions. Perhaps it could be argued, though I think it doubtful, that if we disallowed this regulation now, even though it does not exist, it might fall within section 39. I see that the Attorney-General is shaking his head. Senator Walters-Mr President, I raise a point of order. Senator Missen and Senator Evans keep saying that the regulations do not exist. I have a copy of them in my hand. I would be interested to learn how it is that they do not exist when I have here a copy of them and I assume that they are readily available to everybody in the chamber. I just ask what is the difference between their existing and not existing? The PRESIDENT —No point of order on Senator Missen's statement is involved. Senator Missen-I do not deny the existence of pieces of paper that are produced around the place. Senator Harradine-I am just calling for a vote on it. Senator Missen-If there is a vote on it I will certainly vote against anything. But the point is that what Senator Evans says is essentially right. There is not here at the moment any valid law of the Commonwealth. We would be wasting our time if we debate a matter such as the disallowance of a document which did not have any validity of any sort. It may be thought to have some effect that if a motion of disallowance is passed we bring in section 49 of the Acts Interpretation Act and therefore stymie the Government if it wants to bring in another regulation. Senator Gareth Evans-No. Sections 49 and 50 have no effect whatsoever. Senator Missen-I am relieved to hear of the Attorney-General's confidence in that regard. I thought that that was the only point to be made. So far as I am concerned it seems to me that the point of order should be upheld and a useless debate should not take place when we have so much other business on the agenda which could be dealt with. Senator Harradine-I wish to speak to the point of order. Before the Senate is a notice of motion for the disallowance of regulations which were made by the Government and submitted by it to the Senate. Under the Standing Orders the Senate does have the right, within a prescribed time, to deal with those matters and disallowing such regulations. Under the rules of the Senate, where a regulation has been laid before it, a resolution for the disallowance of that regulation in fact may be moved. That is what the Standing Orders state. That a court may have found regulations to be invalid, and therefore of no legal effect , is of no consequence to the procedures of the Senate. Mr President, you are being asked in this point of order to make a ruling relating to the Senate's procedures and nothing else. That a court may have found the regulations to be invalid and to have no legal effect is of no consequence to the procedures of the Senate. As Senator Evans said, although he may have been out of order, three of the judges decided that the regulations were invalid for want of power, but a majority of the Court did not decide that the regulations were invalid for want of power. The Court majority was obtained simply on the basis, I think, of Mr Justice Deane's judgment which went to the question of just terms. It has been said here that at a future time the Government may well feel that it has the power to make the regulations by reason of the fact that a majority of the High Court has not so ruled and amend these regulations or bring in new regulations. It is this question of just terms that is before us. It may well be that in compensating Tasmania the Government might feel that there should be some further regulations made under the Act which would compensate Tasmania in the just terms sense. But I am just responding to what Senator Evans said and I do not think what he said was in order so perhaps I have been out of order. I come back to the point: What the Court has or has not done about regulations that have been submitted to this chamber has nothing to do with the procedures of this chamber. Although those regulations are invalid they are still on the statute book. This chamber has authority to disallow them. There is no procedural rule under which a motion for disallowance of such regulations could be ruled out of order. The only procedural rule which may be thought to be relevant is that related to a meaningless motion or amendment, but this motion would not be meaningless in a grammatical or procedural sense. For any one of a number of reasons, the Senate may wish to pass a resolution for disallowance notwithstanding that such a resolution has no effect. Frankly, that is one of the reasons why I originally placed the notice of motion for disallowance before the Senate. I did it so that the Senate could have an opportunity of debating not only the regulations themselves but also the propriety of the Attorney- General and the Government in making those regulations. With respect, Mr President, if we are forced into a situtation whereby a ruling which has been sought by Senator Evans is upheld, if we are constrained in having a debate about regulations which some outside body such as the Court has declared invalid, and if you rule that we cannot debate them or a motion for their disallowance, I believe that would be contrary to procedures. I feel that the best way of dealing with this matter is to have it put before the Senate. I am not so sure that as yet it is before the Senate because the motion has not yet been called on. As the mover of the motion it is my right to say whether I will withdraw it or call it not formal. Rather than set a precedent at this stage, Mr President, I simply request you to allow the motion to be called on in the usual way. Senator Evans jumped the gun. I ask you to call the motion on in the usual way and then the appropriate steps can be taken by me. If people do not want a debate on it I can withdraw it or, alternatively, I can call it not formal and at a subsequent stage, by agreement, withdraw it. Senator Mason-Speaking to the point of order, Mr President, I get the distinct feeling of being in wonderland. Surely it is not competent for the Senate to consider any action regarding a regulation or anything which no longer exists. The imputation of that seems to me to be that we have nothing else to do. Indeed , we have plenty of other things to do. It seems to me quite absurd that this should proceed in any sense whatsoever. It would create a precedent which would in many ways be deleterious to this chamber's opinion of the High Court. It could involve us in the most mind-bending exercises in the future. Senator Harradine's proposal that he should declare this motion not formal as an alternative to withdrawing it simply means that it would go on the Notice Paper for further debate. Senator Harradine has not said that he wishes to debate these regulations. Only a few minutes ago he said that he wants to debate the circumstances which might surround compensation to Tasmania. He wants to discuss some hypothetical regulations which he mentioned which the Attorney- General or the Government may or may not bring forward. If the Government brings forward other regulations I suggest that that is the time for Senator Harradine to move for their disallowance. But to use this motion to embrace and cover those points is something we ought not reasonably accept. If the notice of motion does not accept those points, what does it cover? The answer, as the Attorney-General has said, is nothing. I think it is wonderland for the Senate even to be considering whether or not we allow a notice of motion to suggest discussion of something which no longer exists. Senator Tate-Mr President, I rise on the same point of order. As I see it the simple question for the Chair is whether there are regulations before the chamber. The simple fact is that the High Court has declared that what the Executive purported to do-that is create regulations-was totally ineffectual and that nothing which the Executive purported to do had the effect of creating valid regulations. There are no regulations in existence. Senator Harradine did raise a correct point when he said that the High Court cannot interfere with the procedures of this chamber. That is correct. Anything that is strictly intra- mural in relation to the taking of a vote is not able to be inquired into by the High Court. For example, it cannot determine whether there was a first or second reading vote on a Bill or check on the majority in relation to which a vote on the disallowance of a regulation was effected. But we are not dealing with an internal procedure of that nature. We are dealing with the question of whether there is before the chamber regulations which can be disallowed. There are no such regulations. Mr President, what I want to impress upon you is that the Senate could well be brought into disrepute. We have the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances. It has existed for over 50 years. That shows the importance which we place on the activity of this chamber of this Parliament in disallowing regulations created by the Executive. We have always, in this chamber, given this Committee very solemn and due consideration. We regard this as a very important activity of the chamber; one which certainly is not to be abused. There is no doubt in my mind that to allow this motion for disallowance to proceed would be so metaphysically absurd as to bring the whole of that process into disrepute. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —Mr President, may I seek your indulgence and the leave of the Senate to make a further short contribution to this discussion? The PRESIDENT —Is leave granted? There being no objection leave is granted. Senator GARETH EVANS —Mr President, I have no wish to place you in the position of having to rule in what is obviously a difficult and sensitive matter if it is possible for that to be avoided in other ways. I have had the opportunity to discuss this matter further with Senator Harradine in the last few minutes. It appears that a solution that would avoid the Senate getting into the conundrums I earlier described is at hand. The suggested solution is that I do not press my point of order at this stage, that the motion be called on in the normal way for a declaration as to whether it is formal or not formal. Senator Harradine would propose that the motion be declared formal and then before the question was put Senator Harradine, as I understand it, would withdraw the motion in order not to put you, sir, in the position of having to make a ruling on the point of order or to create any further difficulties. I take in a sense part of the point that Senator Harradine was making that maybe my point of order was premature in the sense that there was no motion I suppose at that stage technically before the Senate. The real point I wished to make was that there was no regulation within the meaning of section 119 before the Senate, such that we had a motion that got precedence over Government Business. That was the point I sought to make. Perhaps a better time to make that point would have been later. So to that extent, I believe that the motion ought to be brought on or sought to be discovered, Senator Harradine ought to be able to declare it formal and then Senator Harradine ought to be further given the opportunity to withdraw the motion in the interests of rational debate in this place. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —Mr President, I seek leave to make a very short statement. Leave granted. Senator HARRADINE —The comments made by Senator Evans arose from my suggestion entirely. Being a reasonable man I would like you, sir, to call the motion on and to ask whether it is formal or not formal. The PRESIDENT —Order! I now call on Business of the Senate, Notice of Motion No. 1, standing in the name of Senator Harradine. Is this formal or not formal? Senator Harradine —Formal. Mr President, I seek leave to withdraw the motion standing in my name for disallowance of regulations. The PRESIDENT —Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. Senator Harradine —I withdraw the motion. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay. Bill (on motion by Senator Grimes) read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(6.19) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to a new River Murray Waters Agreement between the Commonwealth, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia for the control and management of certain water resources of the River Murray System. The new Agreement is set out in the Schedule to this Bill. From the earliest days of Federation, the Commonwealth has demonstrated a strong interest in River Murray matters, initially reflecting its concern for interstate trade implications of river traffic, but more importantly in latter times, a recognition of the national importance of water conservation and associated land development based on the River Murray. In fact, River Murray problems, which were already claiming a good deal of attention from 1880 onwards , probably accelerated the advent of Federation. Multi-State aspects of the River Murray waters were alluded to constantly during the great convention debates which preceded Federation. In these debates, the controversial and contested issues relating to River Murray management were identified. The first River Murray Waters Agreement, to resolve developing conflicts in the use of River Murray waters, was signed in 1914, legislation came into effect in 1915 and the River Murray Commission was established in 1917. The new Agreement now before this Parliament is the result of the first major review of this important inter-governmental Agreement since those early days. River water quality, particularly in respect of salinity, has now become a key factor in the long-term utilisation of what is regarded by many as the nation's most important water resource. Under the new Agreement, the responsibilities of the River Murray Commission have been extended to include water quality matters, in addition to the responsibilities it has had in the past for water quantity in the main stem of the river and associated storages. The new Agreement charges the River Murray Commission with the responsibility for monitoring the quality of water in the river, in tributary inflows and in the Commission's storages. To this end, a monitoring network is already well established. The Agreement also authorises the River Murray Commission to formulate water quality objectives or standards for key locations along the river. It is against these objectives or standards that the Commission will have to develop its water management strategies. State authorities are required to inform the Commission of proposals under their consideration which could have a significant effect on water quality or quantity in the river, and to provide the information necessary to enable their likely impact to be assessed. Obviously, the agreed water quality objectives will provide important benchmarks in this region, and the Commission will then make representations, as necessary, to the appropriate State authority on such proposals. Also worth noting, the water distribution provisions have been completely recast to ensure, not only an equitable distribution of water between the States , but also to allow each State maximum flexibility in meeting its own particular water demands. Even more importantly, the provisions will enable account to be taken of the quality of tributary inflows and drainage returns to the river from each State in assessing their respective shares of the water resources under the Commission's control. This procedure should provide a strong incentive to each State to improve the quality of flows in its tributaries and from outfalls to the river. In keeping with modern water management principles, the new Agreement now comprehends important river water management objectives for the Commission, additional to its traditional role of supplying water for irrigation. These could include flood mitigation, environmental protection, recreational uses, etc . For over 65 years, the Commission has operated within the powers defined for it by the four Governments. With the enlargement of these powers to encompass water quality, inter-governmental co-operation in the management of the river system now enters a more difficult phase. As in every river system, water quality is the end product of practically all major activities in the vast catchment of the River Murray-dryland agriculture, irrigation, forestry and urban/industrial development. These are all areas of State responsibility, and the realities of the Australian Constitution require that many of the Commission's water quality responsibilities may have to be pursued in consultation and co-operation with the States. While in these areas the Commission will have mainly an advisory role, its powers of persuasion should not be underestimated, particularly if its representations are based on well researched data and are consistent with the overall thrust of the new Agreement. The Government will be maintaining a close interest in the implementation of the new Agreement and, if there are indications that the Agreement needs to be strengthened, we will approach the three States to determine how this might be done. The Commission retains its autonomy under the new Agreement. This is essential if it is to continue as an effective custodian in the national interest of this most important water resource, and to provide the stimulus for co-operative action by the states in the maintenance and, eventually, improvement of water quality in the River Murray. The Government believes that the new Agreement provides a more adequate framework for inter-governmental co-operation in the development of long-term plans for safeguarding the enormous public and private investment in irrigation settlements and urban water supply systems based on the River Murray in the three States. This Agreement, as was the case with its predecessor, depends on the goodwill of the contracting parties for its success. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Report Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(6.21) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator COATES(Tasmania)(6.22) —by leave-I move: That leave be granted to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations to meet during sittings of the Senate in September 1983. The Senate has referred the Income Tax Regulations (Amendments) contained in Statutory Rules 1983 No. 111, and made under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations for investigation and report on or before 4 October 1983. In order to be able to meet that reporting deadline, the Committee seeks the Senate's approval to meet during the sittings of the Senate. At this stage the Committee has proposed to meet on Wednesday 7 September and will probably need to meet on one further sitting day in the three weeks of the period of sittings commencing on 6, 13 and 20 September 1983. I assure the Senate that the Committee will not need to meet every day of sittings during September but probably only two days. I have issued a public statement and written direct to those industry organisations concerned asking for submissions from those organisations and, of course, from the Commissioner of Taxation to be received by 2 September. So it is clear that the Committee is going about its task expeditiously. However, it needs the approval of the Senate to meet while the Senate is sitting. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That unless otherwise ordered the Senate at its rising adjourn till Tuesday, 6 September 1983, at 2 p.m. Motion (by Senator Grimes)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That the particulars of proposed expenditure for the service of the year ending on 30 June 1984 in relation to the Parliamentary departments, the particulars of proposed expenditure for the service of the year ending on 30 June 1984 and the particulars of certain proposed expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30 June 1984 be referred herewith to Estimates committees for examination and report. (2) That expenditure under the Advance to the Minister for Finance for the year ended 30 June 1983 be referred to Estimates committees for examination and report prior to its consideration in Committee of the Whole. (3) That the committees consider proposed expenditure and departmental expenditure under the advance to the Minister for Finance in the Estimates committee groupings agreed to by resolution of the Senate of 22 April 1983. (4) That the committees report to the Senate on or before Thursday, 6 October 1983. Explanatory Notes Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security) —I lay on the table explanatory notes from the Auditor-General's Office, the Department of Home Affairs and Environment and the Parliament House Construction Authority on estimates of proposed expenditure for 1983-84. Consideration resumed from 24 August. Clause 9 agreed to. Proposed new clause 9A. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(6.26) —by leave-I move: (3) Page 8, after clause 9, insert the following new clause: ''9A. Section 25 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from sub-section (1) 'at such respective rates as are fixed from time to time by the Parliament' and substituting the following: ', as follows: (a) the Chief Judge shall be paid salary, annual allowances and travelling allowances at the same rates as the President of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission; and (b) the Senior Judges, and Judges of the Family Court of Australia shall be paid salary, annual allowances and travelling allowances at the same rates as the Deputy Presidents of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. '.''. This amendment results from representations that have been made over a number of years by the Family Court judges who have been concerned about their status and comparative salaries. I apologise to the Senate-my papers are in a muddle. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.28) —While Senator Missen is finding the relevant papers perhaps I can indicate why the Government opposes the amendment, which has been circulated to honourable senators. Senator Missen is experiencing a difficulty that many of us have experienced in this place, that of being caught short, legislatively speaking. The proposal put forward by Senator Missen is that the Chief Judge and judges be paid particular kinds of salaries and allowances. I think Senator Missen is now in a position to explain it to us. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(6.29) —Amendment No. (3) circulated in my name seeks to change the basis upon which the salaries of the Family Court of Australia judges are paid. The amendment seeks to omit the words: at such respective rates as are fixed from time to time by the Parliament. It seeks to substitute the following words: (a) the Chief Judge shall be paid salary, annual allowances and travelling allowances at the same rates as the President of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission; and (b) the Senior Judges, and Judges of the Family Court of Australia shall be paid salary, annual allowances and travelling allowances at the same rates as the Deputy Presidents of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. '.''. The position is that it was the understanding of judges when they were appointed and when the original Family Law Bill was passed that their salaries and allowances would be paid on that basis, although at that stage the Court has a different name. Since that time there has been reduction in the comparative situation of the Chief Judge and the other judges. It has been long maintained by the judges that this is unfair. Indeed, it is also a fact, of course, that some judges were appointed with the expectation that they would have certain status. This has not subsequently been maintained. This matter has been put forward both to the previous Government and to this Government. The judges have a strong desire that this position be clarified. It is suggested that it should be done in this way. I understand there may be some suggestion that it may not be within the compass of powers of the Senate actually to proceed to make such an amendment. I certainly resist that claim. It is true that there is a need for an appropriation for anything in the Bill which requires the expenditure of moneys. But that can be introduced, as I understand it, any time during the session. I suggest that it does not debar the Senate from passing this amendment. It is true that it may not be operative unless such an appropriation comes to pass. That has been one of the substantial objections made in the past by the present Government and the previous Government when these amendments have been initiated by me. I suggest that, in the sense of giving justice to the judges who have been appointed in the past and those who will be appointed in the future, the status of these judges of an important Federal court should be maintained. Their salaries have slipped considerably because of the lower status they have had in recent years. It is time that we did justice to the judges of the Family Court by introducing this amendment. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.32) —The Government has considerable sympathy for the sentiments underlying this proposal from Senator Missen. We take the view that the judges of the Family Court of Australia and, indeed, their institution have been somewhat undervalued by governments in the past. There are two difficulties, however, about proceeding to the implementation of Senator Missen's proposal. One is of a practical kind. In the present economic climate it appears to the Government not reasonable to expect a major quantum jump of this kind to be accomplished. It would represent an increase of something like $7,000 per annum in the salaries of the Chief Judge and senior judges. The Government's view is that that is simply not manageable in the kind of wage restraint atmosphere in which we are presently operating, although it is something that we would certainly undertake to keep under review. The second difficulty with Senator Missen's proposal is a substantial difficulty. I do not take a point of order about this but I point out that an amendment of this kind is something which, in the language of section 53 of the Australian Constitution, is an amendment which increases a proposed charge or burden on the people and, as such, is not an amendment which can be initiated in this place. It is in the nature, albeit only indirectly as far as appearances are concerned, of an appropriation provision, such that it can only be initiated in the House of Representatives pursuant to a message from the Governor-General under section 56 of the Constitution. For those technical reasons and practical reasons I have indicated the Government opposes Senator Missen's amendment. I repeat that it is something to which I am very sympathetic-not just because I have been lobbied over a long time by the judges' shop steward in this respect but because I do have a genuine regard for the status of the Family Court. I believe that it is appropriate over time, at least, that that status be reflected in the emoluments offered to the judges in question. The CHAIRMAN —Senator Evans, I want to be quite clear that you are not raising that matter as a point of order on which you are seeking a ruling. Senator GARETH EVANS —I did not want to cut short any debate on it. Having drawn your attention to it, Mr Chairman, I believe you have little alternative but to rule it out of order. The CHAIRMAN —That is not necessarily the position. If I do not have to rule on it I will not pursue the matter. Amendment negatived. Clauses 10 to 13-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 14 (Jurisdiction in matrimonial causes). Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(6.35) —I move: (4) Page 11, clause 14, paragraph (1) (e), proposed new paragraph (6) (a), line 20, after 'relief', insert 'or applications for approval of maintenance agreements under section 87 (unless such approval has been given by the court prior to the coming into operation of this sub-section)'. Mr Deputy President, this amendment was suggested originally by the Law Council of Australia. It has also found comment in the annual report of the Family Law Council. The proposal is to deal with the problem which arises because applications for approval of maintenance agreements can be dealt with by magistrates courts. The present situation is that very important considerations may have to be taken into account in a determination, including questions of property of an enourmous value. Magistrates courts could determine an agreement without adequate advice and without any of the facilities of the Family Court to help them. These agreements come under section 87 of the Family Law Act. For some considerable time the Family Law Council, in particular, has been drawing attention to the undesirable practice of retaining so much jurisdiction in the magistrates courts. Likewise, the Law Council of Australia drew attention to this matter in submissions it made in commenting on the original 1981 Bill. At that time, in referring to a sub-section as it then was, it said: This sub-section retains the power of courts of summary jurisdiction to approve maintenance agreements under s.87 of the Family Law Act 1975. The Committee made submissions to the Joint Select Committee of the Federal Parliament suggesting that the jurisdiction of courts of summary jurisdiction be limited to the enforcement of maintenance agreements and maintenance orders. It did so in the belief that the qualifications and training of personnel constituting such courts do not always permit proper consideration of all relevant factors in important matters between husband and wife. It is notable that the Bill preserves the limitation of the jurisdiction of courts of summary jurisdiction over applications for alteration of interests in property below $1,000 in value. It appears inconsistent that such courts can consider the approval of maintenance agreements under s.87 of the Act, when it is often the case that property of very considerable value is involved, and when it is remembered that the agreement provides for a complete release by the parties of all claims under the Family Law Act, and that such agreements are normally incapable of cancellation. In the recent case of Van der Veer it was held that a maintenance agreement approved by a court of summary jurisdiction ceases to be binding if either party appeals from the order approving the agreement. This is a further unsatisfactory aspect of permitting courts of summary jurisdiction to approve such agreements. It is therefore submitted that courts of summary jurisdiction should no longer be empowered to approve agreements made under s.87 of the Act. I propose with this amendment to remove this power but to include the exception, in brackets, 'unless such approval has been given by the court prior to the coming into operation of this sub-section'. One can understand that if that has already happened then one should not deal retrospectively with that situation. Otherwise, I believe this should be done. Likewise, the Family Law Council has long urged that action be taken to reduce the jurisdiction which is to be found in the magistrates courts in regard to important matters like this. I urge that this amendment be carried. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.39) —Notwithstanding again the apparent compelling character of the considerations advanced by Senator Missen, I believe there are good reasons why this amendment should be opposed. The effect of it is to prevent magistrates absolutely and universally from approving maintenance agreements under section 87. Whilst on the whole and generally speaking it might be a good thing to remove that jurisdiction from magistrates and vest it in the Family Court itself, as Senator Missen proposes, and whilst that is the view of the Family Law Council and the Law Council of Australia, nonetheless again practical problems arise if that jurisdiction is removed universally. The need in particular, it appears to the Government, is to cater for litigants in remote areas who do not have access to the Family Court. The view that the Government has taken is that the Family Law Amendment Bill should provide for the termination by proclamation of the jurisdiction of magistrates under the Act, with the proclamations in question being able to be selective as to location and class of matter. What we have in mind is that when this Bill is passed with a provision of this kind-I think it will be contained in section 87-proclamations will be made removing, for the most part, the existing jurisdiction of the magistrates and vesting it where it more properly and satisfactorily belongs-in the Family Court. There will be instances in which we will want to retain that jurisdiction in magistrates courts. Clause 14 of the Bill as it presently stands, which amends section 39 of the principal Act, will enable that to occur. So again, whilst appreciating the general force of what Senator Missen is saying, the Government cannot accept this amendment. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(6.41) —I support the approach of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) in this matter. I do not classify the Australian Capital Territory as a remote area but over the years there have been occasions even in this Territory, when Family Court judges-for good reasons-have not been readily available. The ability to go to the Court of Petty Sessions on matters that arise is something that has been valued and is of great importance. I can see it is an area that needs to be reviewed from time to time but excluding this jurisdiction completely for many litigants puts matters in a financial category that is not necessary. The remote areas are certainly relevant, and perhaps even the less remote areas may need this service. Perhaps criticism of a magistrate's ability to deal with such matters can be considered in other ways, such as the appointment of magistrates and their qualifications. In the meantime, I think it is premature to amend this provision, as Senator Missen has suggested, and I oppose his amendment. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clauses 15 and 16-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Proposed new clause 16A. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(6.43) —I move: (5) Page 12, after clause 16, insert the following new clause:Principles to be applied by courts 16A. Section 43 of the Principal Act is amended by the insertion after paragraph (d) of the following sub clause (e): (e) That in all proceedings there is a need for the Court and legal practitioners to emphasize the facilities provided by the Act and Regulations for the resolution of proceedings by conciliation. This amendment is designed to add to the principles applied to section 43, which was referred to some degree last night. Principles applied by the Family Court and the practitioners are referred to. I have had the opportunity to discuss this amendment with the advisers of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) but I have also had my attention drawn to the sixth report of the Family Law Council. In that report the Council suggests a different form of language which I think is more satisfactory. I have adopted it. Paragraph (e) of the amendment refers to the resolution of proceedings by conciliation. Of course there is already reference in the Act to reconciliation but there is no reference to conciliation. Very often-I think this point was made last night by some speakers-it may be highly undesirable to try to restore a marriage which has completely broken down. In the actual breaking up of a marriage, putting an end to it, it is highly desirable that all conciliatory efforts be made, that all the facilities which the court has can be brought to bear so that the marriage will be broken as gently as possible and with the least trauma, particularly to the children of the marriage. I put forward the view, which was recommended by the Family Law Council, that there ought to be reference to conciliation. As I have said, the Council, in its sixth report, specifically adopted this form of language as desirable for insertion in the Act . I believe it is important to give proper emphasis to conciliation, as the Council has recommended. That is the reason I have proposed this amendment and certainly would press it to a vote. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.46) —The Government accepts Senator Missen's amendment for the reasons which he has outlined. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(6.47) —I feel that consideration of the amendment should be deferred so that we can appreciate what is meant by a number of matters in it. The amendment does not read correctly. This is a requirement by the Family Court- Senator Missen —It relates to principles. Senator HARRADINE —I am talking about proposed new paragraph (e) of section 43 of the Family Law Act. Section 43 states: The Family Court shall, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under this Act or any other Act, and any other court exercising jurisdiction under this Act shall, in the exercise of that jurisdiction, have regard to- The section then sets out in paragraph (a), (b), (c) and (d) certain principles which are designed to give some legislative support to the institution of marriage. They may be designed to do that, but the reference elsewhere in the legislation to irretrievable breakdown of marriage after 12 months does not fit well with that requirement under section 43. The point I am making to the mover of the motion, Senator Missen-perhaps he will take it on board-is that the section states that the 'Family Court shall, in the exercise of its jurisdiction . . . have regard to'- Senator Reid —It just does not read straight. Senator HARRADINE —It does not read properly. Proposed new paragraph (e) states: That in all legal proceedings there is a need for the court and legal practitioners . . . I am not talking about a grammatical matter. I think that issue should be raised not only during proceedings but also at the stage where a person goes along to a lawyer and says: 'I want you to prepare the papers to be lodged in an application for the dissolution of a marriage'. I imagine that is what the mover of the motion is suggesting. If it is, I would be inclined to give some consideration to it but I do not think that fits in section 43. If it were to fit in anywhere I assume it would be in clause 5 of the Bill. I would be strongly in favour of the legal fraternity being required by the legislation to point out to people the facilities which are available for the resolution of problems-not only the facilities provided by the Act and regulations but also other facilities, outside of the Court. Having said that, I wonder whether we could adjourn consideration of this proposed amendment to consider where it might appropriately fit into the legislation. The CHAIRMAN —Senator Harradine, you would be in order if you so proposed. Are you moving the postponement of consideration of proposed new clause 16A? Senator Missen —I would be perfectly happy with that, Mr Chairman. There is quite a lot of validity in what Senator Harradine has said. As the Senate is not sitting next week, perhaps I can get his views and we can do some redrafting. Motion (by Senator Harradine) agreed to: That consideration of proposed new clause 16A be postponed. Clause 17 (Institution of proceedings). Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.52) —At this stage I intend to move only amendment No. (3) because amendment No. 4 is consequential upon my amendment No. (5) so they are more logically grouped together. Amendment No. (3) amends clause 17 to introduce two new sub-sections-44 (1B) and 44 (1C)-the purpose of which is to require that where, in proceedings for dissolution of marriage, the parties have been married for less than two years the application cannot be heard by the Court unless, prior to the filing of the application, the parties have considered reconciliation with a marriage counsellor. There is provision for the Court to dispense with this in special circumstances. Essentially this is the matter which I foreshadowed in debate yesterday. The present provision requires that for short marriages on the brink of dissolution there be reconciliation counselling prior to the hearing of the application. We take the point that has been made by a number of commentators, observers and professionals in this area, that if the counselling is to be of any utility at all-I appreciate that some may be sceptical of that-it is preferable for it to take place prior to the filing of the application rather than after events are well and truly rolling. It is for that reason, and paying due regard to many of the points that have been made by Senator Harradine and others of his view in yesterday's debate, that I move: (3) Page 13, clause 17, after proposed sub-section (1A) insert the following sub -sections: '' '(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- (i) a marriage counsellor or an approved marriage counselling organization; (ii) another suitable person or organization nominated by the Principal Director of Court Counselling of the Family Court; or (iii) an appropriate officer of a Family Court of a State; and (b) signed by that person or on behalf of that organization, as the case may be . '' '(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- (a) if the application has not been filed-give leave for the application to be filed; or (b) if the application has been filed-at any time before or during the hearing of the application, declare that it is so satisfied, and where the court makes a declaration under paragraph (b), the application shall be deemed to have been duly filed and everything done pursuant to that application shall be as valid and effectual as if the court had, before the application was filed, given leave under paragraph (a) for the application to be filed.';''. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(6.53) —This is an improvement on the existing legislation. I do not have before me the findings of a study regarding second marriages. Therefore, I am not able to make a really sensible comment. After I had studied the figures that were available in respect of new marriages and the divorce rates in new and second marriages, which of course are new marriages, I came to the conclusion, for some reason or other, that the period of the marriage should have been three years and not two years. I do not have those figures available to present to the Committee. I will have supporting evidence to produce to the Committee in pursuit of my amendment, which has been circulated, which requires no application to be filed where a new marriage has continued for less than three years. Unfortunately, I am not prepared at this stage to provide the arguments in support of that proposition because I do not have the figures with me. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(6.56) —Unfortunately I had to go out last night before the debate was adjourned. Senator Harradine's amendment provided, as a matter of general application, the need for counselling in reconciliation. All applicants would have to establish that some attempt at reconciliation had been made at some stage. I understand the matter was postponed because further consideration of the wording of the amendment was needed. It seems to me that it would be preferable, would it not, to postpone consideration of this clause as well until that matter is resolved, because if it is a general requirement there would not be any need for this, would there? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.57) —Clause 17 is a big enough mess as it is. We have to deal with so many amendments so rather than leave them hanging may I suggest that if my amendment is passed and Senator Harradine's happens to be passed at a later stage in the debate it would be common sense for my proposal to be regarded as having lapsed by virtue of Senator Harradine's motion being carried. The clause could be recommitted accordingly at that stage. I accept the force and the logic behind this, but if we keep on postponing clauses in this way, what is already a very messy debate will become intolerably so. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(6.58) —We have only three minutes left. Suppose we leave the rest of the amendments until we come back. Three minutes seems a very short time. Senator Gareth Evans —With the rate we are progressing three minutes is like gold. Just keep moving. Senator WALTERS —Two and a half minutes seems to be a very short time. The CHAIRMAN —Senator Walters, I have the Committee nearly to the point of making a decision so if I can I will do so. Amendment agreed to. The CHAIRMAN —Senator Lewis, the proposed order of amendments to this clause is that your amendments (1) and (2) will be considered next, then amendments (4) and (5) of the Attorney-General, taken together, by leave; then his amendment (6 ); followed by your amendments (3) and (4). Would you like to move your amendment No. (1) now? Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(6.59) —Thank you, Mr Chairman. I move: (1) Page 13, clause 17, line 10, leave out ', whether before or after the commencement of section 17 of the Family Law Amendment Act 1983'. If honourable senators read pages 1, 2 and 3 they will not know what the amendments are all about. However, if they were to turn to page 4, they would find an explanation. The opening paragraph is of great importance. It states: The object of these amendments is to provide a strong initiative for the parties to a marriage to come to an agreement in relation to maintenance and property before the divorce is finalised . . . As a practical country lawyer for some 20-odd years it has always been my experience in litigation that the problem is getting the parties in any dispute to face up to the barrier-in other words, finally to realise the reality of the situation and what they may ultimately expect in real terms instead of airy- fairy terms. Frequently they start off-- Senator Withers —On matters of principle. Senator LEWIS —As Senator Withers says, on matters of principle. No matter how hard a practitioner in any legal field tries, very frequently it is impossible to get the parties to face up to the reality that the best they can hope for is a certain result. Consideration interrupted. The CHAIRMAN —Order! It being 7 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- Excise on Grape Spirit-Australian Film Industry-Canberra Commercial Development Authority Board-South West Tasmania The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Lewis) —It being after 7 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: The the Senate do now adjourn. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(7.00) —I rise again tonight in a sense of some outrage arising from my discussion last night in the adjournment debate of the question of the wine tax. Some people who were in the chamber at the time might remember that I tried to address a question to the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) as to whether he may deem it fit to take to his colleague the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) the complaints made by the industry. I wanted to convey to the Government the very deep concern of the people of South Australia on this issue. As honourable senators may recall, my Labor colleague from South Australia, Senator Crowley, prevented me from asking that question last night. I now ask it. I would like to hear whether the Attorney-General has any conclusive information which can demonstrate whether the Government is prepared to consider the very significant problems of South Australian wine makers who have a very real difficulty in financing significant sums associated with the excise that will be imposed as a result of the legislation yet to be brought down. I reiterate the point that when a grape spirit maker makes a spirit and is then obliged to use it in the making of ports, brandies, sherries or muscats, then, within seven days thereafter, he has to pay an excise to the Commonwealth in order to comply with the arrangements that are now being outlined. That system has been presented forward by this Government as being a carry-through of an old system of excise which was applicable to wine and other spirits of this kind in times past. I make the point that that is not correct and it cannot simply be justified on those grounds. Last night I pointed out that if wine makers in this situation use grape spirit to fortify port wine and if that port is a significant and quality wine, perhaps some 15 years will elapse before he can recover from the person to whom he sells the port the excise that he paid seven days after mixing the spirit with the port. This is an outrageous attempt to drag working capital out of wine makers' businesses so far ahead of the final product. It is fair to say that it is possible that the material might be destroyed while maturing. In fact it is certain that a very large proportion of it, estimated at around 2 1/2 per cent, and perhaps even as high as 10 per cent, may have evaporated in the meantime and is a straight loss to the wine maker. There is one other point to be made in regard to the old system of excise which the Treasurer, Mr Keating, would have us believe is being carried on in this tax that he is bringing down. Senator Peter Rae —You mean the newly discredited Treasurer. Senator MESSNER —The newly discredited Treasurer, Mr Keating. He compared the 1970 system of applying excise. In those days, on a comparable basis, the excise applicable would have been 15.4c per litre of alcohol. Today, as evidenced by Budget Paper No. 2, the tax that will be applied is $2.61 per litre of alcohol. Consequently, the increase is about 17 times what it was in 1970. By no means can the Government claim that this is a mere extension of a previous system of excise collection. I know that the Attorney-General was tired last night. He commented to the effect that the whole debate was tedious. I believe he probably meant that the debate about the wine tax was certainly tedious. Consequently, I did not get from him any response that recognised the point that I was making in regard to the need to finance these costs of excise for such long periods during which the final product would be matured. He raved on about some irrelevant factors that related to the actual cost per bottle of this particular excise and he sought to describe it as something like 25c a bottle. Of course, he did not acknowledge the enormous costs of financing that money over the life of maturation of the product nor did he acknowledge the problems of evaporation of the product over that period which, as I have said, can be as long as 15 years or longer. Neither did he acknowledge that there is a considerable physical problem in storing these things and the consequent costs involved. The cost of excise adds to those extra costs. It is that question that I will be bringing to the attention of the Attorney- General. I hope that he will see fit to take that to his colleague and obtain a reply and, I hope, a reconsideration of that aspect of the tax in order to have it aligned with the previous method by which excise was levied in these situations, which was that the tax would be payable at the point of release for sale of the final product, not at the time at which it is blended into the material of which it is a raw ingredient. From that point of view there is a very significant question at issue. It is one which raises very considerable concern because it really challenges the viability of wine makers in South Australia who use the spirit specifically for the purposes of making fortified wines. I stated last night that this Bill has a very uneven effect right across the Commonwealth, particularly in my State of South Australia where 65 per cent of the grape spirit is used. Not only will it affect the State as a whole but also it will severely impact on a particular part of the State, that is, the irrigated wine areas of the riverland-those parts around Renmark, Berri and Barmera-in South Australia. I draw those things to his attention because it could quite possibly be that as much as $16m will be ripped out of that part of the South Australian economy, with a very detrimental effect. I look to the Attorney-General for his comments. If he is unable to provide them tonight, I certainly hope that he will take this very significant concern to his colleague and obtain a reply and a very serious and overall comprehensive review of the impact of this tax before the final legislation is brought down. Senator MARTIN(Queensland)(7.09) —This week the Hawke Labor Government has torpedoed the Australian film industry. The actions taken this week by the Government in relation to the film industry will have the effect, I predict, of ruining prospects of private investment in the film industry in Australia. I do not seek to pre-empt the debate on the subject matter of taxation legislation that will come forward in this session, but I seek to place on the record that, because of a lack of understanding of taxation concessions for the film industry , the industry will find itself very soon in a grave predicament. The effect of the Government's changes to tax arrangements is two-fold. The first effect is that they have brought great uncertainty, yet again, to the industry. The Government promised two years of stability in the most recent tax measures, that is those passed by the Parliament in May this year. Only three months later the Government has changed the rules again and thrown the Australian film industry into turmoil. Of course, the Government could have changed the rules a little by keeping one of its election promises-that relating to tax deductibility of the cost of marketing films. That promise was not kept and another promise of stability and no change for two years have been broken by the most recent tax measures. Some publicity has been given in the Press today to the reactions of the film industry. I want to support very strongly those reactions because they were the conclusions I drew after looking at the Budget Speech on Tuesday night. Some people have thought that because the term 150 per cent tax write-off is used, if investors spend, let us say, $1m on producing a film, $1.5 passes into the hands of the investors. Of course, that is not true. The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen), in his speech to the Parliament on 25 May 1983, went to the length of pointing out that the 150 per cent tax deduction is effectively only a 128 per cent tax deduction. In any event at that point the investment is still not fully returned. The Minister went on to look at the collective effect of a 150 per cent tax write-off plus a tax exemption of 50 per cent of the investment and to point out that the result was that, on the figures with a $1m investment, the break-even point was approximately $240,000. The Minister said: It was true that if an investor put $1m into a film with an effective tax write -off of 128 per cent, he needed a return of approximately only $240,000 to break even. However, three out of five films did not return $240,000. This is the most important point that the people must remember. One out of five broke even and the fifth went into profit. Therefore the second effect of the changes announced by the Government on Tuesday night-the lowering of the tax write-off to 133 per cent and the lowering of the tax exemption-is such that many films will not reach break-even point, far fewer than previously did. The Minister has put great emphasis in the past on the fact of how few films have reached break-even point. The effective raising of the break-even point by 10 per cent has meant that fewer films will reach break-even point and even fewer will make a profit. Further, the investor will pay tax on the film's income at least at the point where the film passes into profit, and possibly before it has even reached the break-even point. The reason he will pay tax in a loss situation is that Labor has not honoured its election promise to allow the cost of marketing a film to be tax deductible. The effect of these government actions on private investment is, of course, obvious. The film industry has had its problems in recent times in attracting investment. It has been suggested that the late passage of the taxation amending legislation in May of this year was responsible for the low level of investment for 1982-83 and that perhaps investment might lift in the future. The message to investors now is clear. The chances of an Australian made film making a profit and returning a profit to the investor are even more remote than they previously were in this notoriously high risk industry. Investors have a major disincentive to stay away from the film industry as a result of the decisions of this Government. On the other hand, the Government tells us that in return for a saving of $4m in tax, it will put $5m into the Australian Film Commission. I predict that the Government will save far less than $4m because private investors will not put money into the industry under these new conditions. The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment made a statement yesterday on the subject of the $5m that will be given to the Australian Film Commission. I have nothing against the Australian Film Commission. I think it has done some very good work. But quite clearly the advantage that a film will have now if it is supported by the Australian Film Commission becomes overwhelming in the light of what I have said about the effect of the Government's measures on private investment. I am sure that the Minister is very genuine in his positive attitude towards the Australian film industry. I have never had any reason to suspect otherwise. I believe that the Minister sitting in the chamber now, the Minister who represents him, the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan), is also very genuine in her interest in the Australian film industry. However, I fear that it is likely that those who have understood the arithmetic and who have understood the consequences of the Government's decision have not had their way in Cabinet. I do not say that lightly-it is always an easy comment to make. But there are on the record statements by other members of the present Cabinet about the tax concessions that were previously obtained. Most notably, there have been statements in the Senate by Senator Peter Walsh, who when in opposition referred in debate on these subjects to the previous taxation measures as a rort and pork-barrelling exercise. Senator Walsh in his statements on those taxation concessions showed no understanding of what the concessions amounted to and exhibited the same sort of blind prejudice as we were treated to by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in his statement on Tuesday night on who had been benefiting in the film industry. Thousands of people owe their jobs to private investment in the Australian film industry. That is not thousands of actors-a relatively small number of actors can be taken out of the total. But the total number of people who earn their livings from the Australian film industry, who earn their incomes from private investment in the film industry, in the technical and production areas and in other areas, is very large indeed. These people face, at a stroke, a bleak future despite having been promised a stable one. The rhetoric of the Treasurer in saying who would be the losers by these changes in the taxation concessions showed no sensitivity towards, or knowledge of, the number of people whose jobs are now threatened. I return to the grant of $5m to the Australian Film Commission for investment in films. I am alarmed at the message that comes through in the Government's attitude to this. The Minister has said that the production of films of high quality with potential for commercial viability will be further encouraged by Government investment through the Australian Film Commission. Those with proposals to make films and those who seek to produce films face a very poor prospect of getting private investment in their films. Obviously they will turn to the Australian Film Commission for investment. An amount of $5m, of itself, will not make a major contribution to very many feature films. But for those who will now be competing for a very much reduced level of investment, that $5m held by the Australian Film Commission will be overwhelmingly irresistible. If the Commission is to pursue anything other than a totally objective and impartial policy on the content of those films, the film industry is indeed in for a bleak time. I agree that films should be of a high quality if they are to have public investment. I agree that there should be a judgment made as to commercial viability. I do not agree that it is very easy to judge that. In the Senate on 2 June I asked a question in relation to a statement that the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment had made about Australian films that had become profitable. On 3 June the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) had that list of films incorporated in Hansard. I seek leave to have that list incorporated in Hansard on this occasion. Leave granted. The list read as follows- The Naked Bunyip Adventures of Barry McKenzie Alvin Purple Libido Alvin Rides Again Bazza Holds His Own Peterson Stone Sunday Too Far Away Australia After Dark Picnic at Hanging Rock Man from Hong Kong The Devil's Playground Caddie Don's Party Fantasm Storm Boy Blue Fire Lady Felicity Mad Max Money Movers The ABC of Love & Sex Australian Style Breaker Morant My Brilliant Career Gallipoli Winter of Our Dreams Mad Max 2 Puberty Blues The Man from Snowy River. Senator MARTIN —It is an interesting list. It is interesting to me in that I had not heard of some of the films and can only speculate what the content of certain of them was. Perhaps it is not surprising that I have not heard of them. Mr Deputy President, you look puzzled. I did not want to do an injustice to a film. One is called Libido and another is called Fantasm. As I said, I do not know anything about them but the image their titles project is of a very particular type. I might be quite wrong. Maybe the subject of the films was something that does not appear obvious from their titles. However it is interesting that approximately half of the films that have been profitable are what we would call not elevating. They may be entertaining. There are films like Adventures of Barry McKenzie, Bazza Holds His Own, Alvin Purple and Alvin Rides Again. They are films that some people would choose not to see. But they are obviously films that a large number of people have chosen to see because they made a profit. The other half of the list includes films such as Picnic at Hanging Rock, Caddie, Gallipoli, My Brilliant Career and Breaker Morant. Some people would say these were high quality films, but not necessarily all would enjoy them. I think the list demonstrates that people are very varied in their tastes in films. If people were to use some sort of measure of what is a film of high quality they could well overlook the sort of film which, according to its existence on this list, has the ability to be profitable. For example, Puberty Blues was a very low budget film. I suspect that if I just read some outline of the screen play of that film I might have thought that it had the potential of being a not very high quality film. Yet, it is a sensitive, worthwhile film. I am concerned that a semi-government body will have such an important bearing on what films will actually be made in Australia. I ascribe to the Australian Film Commission no motive of malice or elitism, but it concerns me that it will now have such a strong influence in determining which films are made, particularly when the Minister in his statement has made many comments of a highly subjective nature on what constitutes a high quality film. For example, he said: Much effort has been wasted by Ministers and my Department in the certification process in considering proposals for films that were never likely to enter production. I do not know how that judgment of likelihood to enter production can be made in advance by the Department of Home Affairs and Environment, but obviously there is some value judgment abroad in that Department. Terms have been used by the Minister such as 'quality', 'acceptable standard' and 'doubtful merit'. I am not asserting that the Minister would direct the Australian Film Commission, but he is very close to it and apparently has very definite views on what is an ' acceptable standard', 'quality' and 'merit'. That is very disturbing indeed. The film industry is rightly upset by Government action this week. Film producers rightly regard the future as very ominous indeed. I thought in May that we had made a step forward and the film industry welcomed it. A bipartisan measure came to this Parliament in relation to taxation and the film industry and a promise of stability was given. The film industry, for all its enthusiasm on that occasion, must indeed now feel shattered and wonder what it did wrong. Did it make films that the Minister considers to be of doubtful quality and merit? Are they films that are on the profitable list? How can the Minister possibly justify the Government's actions? The Minister has, of course, been very defensive on the subject and I do not blame him. I am sure he is not very happy about the position he has been put in. The Minister undoubtedly will survive to bring more legislation on films into this Parliament but many other Australians now know that they will not see a future in which they will be part of an Australian film industry. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(7.26) —I wish to refer briefly to two matters. The first is that apropos the public reporting of certain affairs related to the Public Accounts Committee and the reappointment of the Canberra Commercial Development Authority Board members, I draw the attention of the Senate to chapter 13 of the sixth report of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations which was tabled in September 1982. On page 171 of that report the Committee said: The Committee also expresses its strong disapproval of the apparent disregard by the CCDA Board of its clear responsibilities. The facts and circumstances set out in this report raise clearly the question of appropriate sanctions which should apply in respect of such behaviour. The Committee assumes that at the least-I pause to emphasise 'at the least'- in light of the above there would be little likelihood of any government again giving similar responsibilities to the people involved. I want to draw attention to the fact that it is not only the Public Accounts Committee which has expressed formally and in a bipartisan way a concern about the management of this Authority and the lack of responsibility of the people who are involved in the handling of a considerable amount of public money in the Australian Capital Territory. The second matter to which I refer briefly is a matter to which considerable reference has already been made in this chamber over a long period, nonetheless it remains important. That is, the question of compensation to Tasmania in relation to the stopping of the dam in South West Tasmania. I express a continuing dissatisfaction with the Government's provision in the Budget of only $27m for the coming year. It is not even the $30m which was referred to in the Budget Speech. On further examination it appears that $27m is provided as a maximum amount subject to negotiation of particular projects. That amounts to less than a quarter of the claim for the first year made by Tasmania. That claim for the first year is simply in respect of two of the promises made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and other Ministers on behalf of this Government to continue the employment of the people who were put out of work as a result of the stopping of the dam and compensate for the damage to Tasmania, including the expenses to date. Those expenses are assessed at $60m. If there is something wrong with that assessment, then let it be identified. Obviously the complete perversion of the claim by the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) in the House of Representatives yesterday heightened the concern felt by many Tasmanians. For him to be pouring scorn on the claim of Tasmania is to heighten the concern that the Government has no real intention of making any form of adequate provision. I can only draw to the Minister's attention the way in which compound interest works. If the Minister does not understand, I invite him to get a quick lesson in compound interest. But the point I make to him is that the longer this Government delays paying anything to Tasmania-it has not paid a cent to date-the more concerned will Tasmanians and, I imagine, every decent Australian become and the more the amount of compensation due to Tasmania will compound. I thank the Senate for the opportunity of bringing those matters to the attention of honourable senators. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(7.28) —I rise to respond briefly to matters that have been raised by Opposition senators in the adjournment debate tonight. I have been asked by the Attorney-General, Senator Evans, to comment briefly on the matter raised by Senator Messner when the Attorney-General was in the chamber and I was not. Senator Messner raised matters concerning his question today on excise on fortified wine. Senator Evans has asked me to convey to Senator Messner, who is himself not now in the chamber, that he is perfectly happy to refer the matter to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) for an appropriate response and that he will do so. Senator Martin took the opportunity to express her views on the recently announced changes to the tax concessions available for investment in Australian films. At the outset I say that I still welcome the fact that Senator Martin and the Opposition generally wish to have a bipartisan policy of support for the Australian film industry. The industry has been through turbulent times over the last few years and it is certainly the intention of this Government to introduce an element of stability that has previously been lacking. Senator Martin does not agree that the decision made by the Government in the last couple of days is a step in that direction but I expect that events will prove her wrong. The Australian Government is very committed to the Australian film industry, not only because, as Senator Martin rightly points out, it is a large employer of people with a wide range of skills, but also because it has become a focus for expression of national identity in a way that no previous art form has achieved. I know that you, Mr Deputy President, probably of all honourable senators in this place, are aware of the achievements of the Australian film industry over recent years. We all rejoice in that and we all wish it to continue. The question arises as to how best to ensure future investment, public and private, in the Australian film industry at a level which will secure stability, which will enable innovation, change and development and which will ensure that the films that Australians can identify with, enjoy and be proud of are the films which are making a reputation for Australia internationally. The changes that the Government has made to tax concessions available for investment in films are minor amendments. They are not drastic changes. There is a reallocation of the form in which our support for the film industry will be carried out. I think that everybody interested in the film industry and everybody who has followed its turbulent history in recent years will agree that if investment in films has mainly the purpose of providing a tax haven for private investors, then some distortions and reduction in quality inevitably follow. It has been the view of many people in the film industry that there has been investment in films which has not brought with it any genuine interest in the kinds of films being made but has simply sought to utilise the tax haven that such investment is able to provide. There have been distortions in the film industry. Many films have been made for which substantial concessions have been available, which have not been successful, not only because they have not managed to break into the profit producing area-I agree with Senator Martin that it is very difficult to get a profitable return on an Australian film because of various cost factors-but also because they were no good. I do not think that anyone who works in the film industry would argue with that view. There have been other kinds of distortions, too, in terms of employment opportunities, the availability of crews and things of this kind, which flowed from the problems that the industry experienced when the tax concessions were available for only a very short period. The film had to be made, produced and earning income within 12 months. We have corrected that situation and allowed a two year timetable for the production of a film. This will allow for a much more orderly development of the film industry. As to whether the level of concessions available-they are still very generous-will attract a sufficient level of private investment, I can only say that time will tell. I know that my colleague , the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, Mr Barry Cohen, is firmly convinced, after extensive consultations with the film industry, that they will. I am very supportive of the way in which we have changed our support for the film industry, in that money saved from adjusting the tax concession will be given to the Australian Film Commission for direct public investment in films. There is no doubt that we would not have had an Australian film industry if we had not had extensive public investment. The early histories of the South Australian Film Corporation, the New South Wales Film Corporation and the Australian Film Commission all provide evidence that, because of our particular circumstances of population and isolation from the rest of the world, and the fact that we are a small part of a huge global English speaking population, we have needed a public investment base for our film industry. We have such a base and we have had a successful film industry. This Government wants to see the right balance between public and private investment. But it is the view of the Government that there will always be a need for solid public investment in the Australian film industry, for direct investment into feature films. The Australian Film Commission and certainly the New South Wales and South Australia film corporations have good records of investment in Australian films. There is also the fact that public investment can fund things that will not attract private investments, but are nevertheless very important. One area in which we would like to see the Film Commission more active and supportive is that of creative development activities. It should assist new film makers, film writers and so forth who, because they do not have established reputations, would not be able to attract extensive private investment. If we do not nurture new talent, which is necessary in any area of creative activity, we will not have a film industry in 10 years time. Therefore we judged that it was very important to improve the capacity of the Australian Film Commission to support creative development. The decisions announced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in the last couple of days will do that. Senator Martin raised the question-not of censorship; I do not wish to be unjust to her-of the connection between the expressed subjective values of the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment and the kinds of films which the Australian Film Commission would support. It is entirely reasonable that people in the film industry want to know what the Minister responsible for this activity thinks about films. I congratulate my colleague Barry Cohen on being very active, available, accessible and frank in his dealings as a new Minister with this industry, but it would be quite wrong to assume that because he is interested in a certain kind of film-as indeed I am, or Senator Martin or Senator Hamer would be-that that would somehow become a charter for investment for the Australian Film Commission. It is an independent statutory body. We believe that the film industry and the Australian Government are best served by that independence being maintained and clearly recognised and appreciated by people in the film industry. I do not lack any confidence in the capacity of the Film Commission to make wise investments with the additional money it will get. It will not back a winner every time because, as everyone knows, that is impossible not only at the races but also in the film industry. However, its track record is good enough for us to feel confident that it will continue to provide a major source of support for the film industry. We also express the hope and the expectation that the reputation of Australian films is now so high that serious private investment which is linked with the outcome in terms of the kinds of films produced and not just utilising a tax haven, will combine to provide a burgeoning and lively film industry over the next few decades. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 7.39 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 6 September 1983. The following papers were presented: Australian Bureau of Statistics Act-Australian Bureau of Statistics-Proposals 1983- No. 7-Survey of Real Estate Agencies, 1982-83. No. 8-Survey of Legal Services, 1982-83. No. 9-Census of Superannuation Funds, 1982-83. No. 10-Quarterly Survey of Australian Direct Investment Abroad. Lands Acquisition Act-Statements (2) of lands acquired by agreement authorised under sub-section 7 (1). The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 36 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, 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 Walsh —The Minister for Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) and (2) See table below. (3) Major equipment purchases now obsolete or likely to be in the next five years are: Two disk drives and packs for a Honeywell 61/60 computer. Attachment A PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS NOS 35-62 (PARTS (1) AND (2)) Actual and Estimated Expenditure on Computer Hardware, Software and Maintenance 1975-76 to 1985-86 Item 1975/76* 1976/77 1977/78 1978/79 1979/80 1980/81 1981/82 1982/83 1983/84 1984/85 1985/86 Total $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Actual Estimate* (to (from 12/82) 1/83) Hardware* and software 48,218 151,803 247,919 358,911 233,822 107, 130 381,649 248,353 38,568 29,000 4,000 4,000 Maintenance 7,409 8,067 13,825 15 ,478 18,587 23,554 55,868 27,251 16,251 33,082 35,890 38,979 * Complete figures for 1975-76 not available. * No estimates available from Joint Coal Board (JCB). Responsibility for JCB transferred to Minister for Resources and Energy on 11 March 1983. * JCB were not able to separate software and maintenance so the maintenance figure is included in this item. Attachment BPARLIAMENTARY QUESTION NOS 35-62 (Part (3)) Major equipment purchases now obsolete or likely to be in the next 5 years are: 2 Disk drives and packs for a Honeywell 61/60 computer. Question No. 39 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, 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 Button —The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Table 1 provides totals of actual expenditure on computer hardware and software and repairs and servicing of computers for the financial years 1975-76 to 1982-83 and totals of planned expenditure for the financial years 1983-84 to 1985-86. (2) Table 2 provides details of when expenditure was incurred in each of the above categories. (3) None. Table 1 DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS Total Expenditure on Computer Hardware and Software and Computer Maintenance 1975-76-1982-83 (Actual) and 1983-84-1985-86 (Planned)(a) Financial Hardware year/ and Main- expenditure software tenance Total ($'000) ($'000) ($'000) Actual- 1975-76-1982-83 5,088.0 408.9 5,496.9 Planned- 1983-84-1985-86 10,047.0 3,393.0 13,440.0 (a) Expenditure on word-processing equipment is not included. Table 2 DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS Expenditure on Computer Hardware and Software and Computer Maintenance by Individual Financial Years 1975-76-1982-83 (Actual) and 1983-84-1985-86 (Planned )(a) Financial Hardware year/ and Main- expenditure software tenance Total ($'000) ($'000) ($'000) Actual- 1975-76 10.0 . . 10.0 1976-77 16.3 2.3 18.6 1977-78 57.8 4.2 62.0 1978-79 38.5 63.1 101.6 1979-80 689.7 40.1 729.8 1980-81 412.0 36.0 448.0 1981-82 296.0 71.0 367.0 1982-83 3,567.7 192.2 3 759.9 Planned- 1983-84 8,354.0 1,131.0 9,485.0 1984-85 1,024.0 1,131.0 2,155.0 1985-86 669 .0 1,131.0 1,800.0 (a) Expenditure on word-processing equipment is not included.