Tuesday, 6 September 1983 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: Discrimination against Women To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that whereas the Government of Australia has signed the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which in Article 23 (1) states that ''The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to the protection by society and the State''. And whereas the terms of the United Nations Covention 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. (5) Subjecting Australia to monitoring and control by foreign nations. And we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our Nation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Archer (from 22 citizens), Sir John Carrick (from 124 citizens), Lewis (from 10 citizens), Robert Ray (from 59 citizens) and Scott (from 378 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia shows that the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women is a threat to the independence and well-being of Australia and her families. Your petitioners therefore pray the Government not to ratify the said Convention, Believing That: 1. The Convention treats mothering as a second class calling and is discriminatory against the stable family unit, the single income family, and mothers who want a free choice to care for their children at home. 2. The establishment and development of a network of child care facilities ( Article 11 (c) ) will only increase maternal deprivation on the part of children , and place further financial burdens upon the government. 3. The forcing of more women into the workforce can only be detrimental to Australia at this time of high unemployment. 4. Australia will make herself subject to the International Court of Justice and no longer be a properly autonomous nation. 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 Senator Durack (from 69 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 we will always thus petition. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Messner (from 14 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That your Petitioners are concerned about foreign owned military bases on Australian territory and the entry into Australian waters and territory of foreign warships and aircraft carrying nuclear weaponry. And that the Australian Government should take an active and constructive role in the promotion of a nuclear-free world. Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should: (1) Promote the expression of Australian sovereignty by legislating to bring foreign military bases on Australian territory under the control of the Australian Government. (2) Make it compulsory that the disclosure of weaponry carried by foreign warships and aircraft be given in confidence to the Australian Government prior to a request for entry. And that foreign warships and aircraft that carry nuclear weaponry be banned from Australian waters and territory. (3) Legislate for the cessation of all uranium mining in Australia and its subsequent export. (4) Urge the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to pose to the Governments of the United States and the Soviet Union that both countries agree to immediately halt the testing, production and further deployment of all nuclear weapons, missiles and delivery systems in a way that can be checked and verified by both sides. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (by 244 citizens). To the Honourable The President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That all members of the Women's Services 1939-45 War qualify as 'Australian Soldier' under the Defence Service Homes Act for loans because on voluntarily joining the Australian Forces they took the oath to resist His Majesty's enemies making themselves available for combat duty in War Zones, and according to Acts and Regulations of the period the Military women had enlisted for service anywhere, some Naval women to sail in any waters, with all servicewomen available for service in Papua New Guinea. As those members of the Royal Australian Navy, the Australian Imperial Force and the Royal Australian Air Force of 1939-45 War who were not sent to War Zones are granted loans, refusal to grant eligibility to all Ex-servicewomen of 1939- 45 War is unjust and unfair. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that you amend the Defence Service Homes Act by repealing Sub-section 4 (2A) (b) (c) (d) of the Principal Act as amended by No. 137 of 1978, and grant eligibility to all members of the Women's Royal Australian Naval Service, the Australian Women's Army Service, the Women's Auxiliary Australian Air Force, the Australian Army Medical Women's Service, and the Voluntary Aid Detachment of 1939-45 War. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from six citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the members of the Women's Services of the 1939-45 War not at present considered eligible for Defence Service Home Loans should qualify as 'Australian Soldiers' under the Defence Service Homes Act. They volunteered for service with the Naval, Military and Air Forces, serving wherever they were sent in whatever capacity they were required and yet are refused Defence Service Home Loans. They took the oath to resist His Majesty's enemies which meant to fight His Majesty's enemies, and although not used in actual combat in war zones, they were available for that use and had a sufficiently grave need arisen would have been used, to serve with distinction as have women of other lands. In accordance with the Acts and Regulations of the period, the women of the Military Forces had enlisted for service anywhere, some of the Naval women to sail in any waters, others with service on warships optional, while the women of the Airforce could have been sent to Papua New Guinea or other territories under the control or care of Australia. Ex-servicemen of the Royal Australian Navy, the Australian Imperial Force and the Royal Australian Air Force who volunteered in the 1939-45 War but were not sent to War Zones are granted home loans. Not to grant eligibility to all Ex- servicewomen of 1939-45 War is unjust and unfair. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that you favourably consider amending the Defence Service Homes Act by repealing Sub-section 4 (2A) (b) (c) (d) of the Principal Act as amended by No. 137 of 1978, and grant eligibility to all members of the Women's Royal Australian Naval Service, the Australian Women's Army Service, the Women's Auxiliary Australian Air Force, the Australian Army Medical Women's Service, and the Voluntary Aid Detachment of 1939-45 War. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Scott (from eight 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 US, Australian and allied forces used huge amounts of toxic chemicals for military purposes, such as Agents Orange, Blue and White, in Vietnam during the war there; (2) many of these chemicals were, and are, known to be highly dangerous to human health; (3) Australia's Vietnam veterans and their families are suffering many severe problems which may be due to their exposure to these chemicals; and (4) the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia has been seeking a Royal Commission for well over two years to ensure an independent investigation of these matters. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Parliament of Australia will: (a) express its support for the Royal Commission; and (b) urge the Federal Government to establish the Royal Commission immediately. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator McIntosh (from 26 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Division of Moore respectfully showeth: That there is great need for the establishment of a new Community Youth Support Scheme project in the Subdivision of Girrawheen, because of the high level of youth unemployment in this subdivision, in order that the CYSS project can provide a range of activities which develop the skills, abilities and self reliance of unemployed young people resident in the Subdivision of Girrawheen. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray- That proposals for the establishment of a new Community Youth Support Scheme project in the Subdivision of Girrawheen be granted favourable and prompt attention by this Parliament and its Ministers. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Coleman (from 81 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate of the Australian Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth: That currently discrimination in provision of work, in appointment to jobs and in promotion exists in Australia on particular grounds including, inter alia, grounds of race, ethnic origin, marital status, pregnancy, sex and/or sexual preference; and That currently discrimination in the provision of unemployment benefits is exercised against particular groups of individuals-in particular, against married women. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That appropriate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in Commonwealth employment, in employment of individuals under federal awards, in employment of persons by statutory bodies and quasi-governmental organisations, and in employment of all persons in areas over which Commonwealth and Australian Capital Territory equal opportunity legislation should have jurisdiction; and That appropriate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in the provision of unemployment benefits to all persons without regard to sex and/or marital status. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Cook (from 16 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully submits that: Although many occurrences of sexual harassment in the workforce have been reported to various State government authorities, such as the Victorian Commission for Equal Opportunity, the real incidence of sexual intimidation in employment will not be known, or countered, until a national policy towards sexual harassment is determined and implemented. We therefore submit that: 1. The National Committee on Discrimination in Employment and Occupation be commissioned to conduct a nation-wide study of discrimination based on sex, both in the private sector and the Public Service, with a view to advising the Government on the development of national policy. 2. The major priority of such a study should be to determine a legally- enforceable definition of sexual harassment. 3. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations should bring forward in Parliament legislation, arising from such a study, to outlaw discrimination and intimidation in employment based on sex. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robert Ray (from 234 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: (1) That we are deeply concerned for the well-being of Mr Mart Niklus, a leading Estonian and Baltic human rights activist who is in ill health and imprisoned in solitary confinement in Perm Labour Camp No. 389/36 in Siberia. (2) That Mr Mart Niklus has been imprisoned as a 'prisoner of conscience' for the non-violent exercise of his beliefs and is denied visiting and communication rights. (3) That the Australian Government give its support to any initiatives in this case by Amnesty International which has adopted Mr Mart Niklus. Amnesty International believes he has committed no real crime and has never used or advocated the use of violence. (4) That we urge the Australian Government to make representations to the Government of the Soviet Union to promptly release Mr Mart Niklus and grant him a passport and exit visa. (5) That in its representations to the Government of the Soviet Union advise that the Australian Government has approved the sponsored entry of Mr Mart Niklus into Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 187 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the State of West Australia respectfully showeth: That the plan by the Australian Telecommunications Commission to withdraw public telegram facilities and downgrade telegram standards by: 1. planning to withdraw the 24 hour telegraph service at the Chief Telegraph Office in each capital city and in Canberra and Darwin 2. closing country telegraph offices 3. increasing telegram charges whilst downgrading the service 4. withdrawing telegram operating facilities from a large number of suburban and country post offices 5. generating serious delays in telegram delivery by reducing standards of service through centralisation of the network and reduction of operating and delivery staff will reduce an available means of communications in commercial enterprise, deny the opportunity for people of Australia to make contact with family and friends in times of emergency, and civil or natural disasters, particularly for the 30 per cent of Australians who are not telephone subscribers. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will take measures to ensure the maintenance of an efficient, effective public telegram service to meet the needs of the Australian people socially, publicly, commercially and in times of emergencies and civil or natural disasters. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator McIntosh (from eight citizens). To the Honourable President and members of the Senate assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows: That, because the aforesaid U.N. Convention which has been ratified and is about to be made the subject of lawful application by Parliament, contains articles which intend to force a re-structuring of our society in that: (a) Women will have equal responsibilities as well as rights in all areas of society. (b) Role changing between sexes in society and family, with revision of text books, school programmes, and teaching methods to that end. (c) Provision of net-works of child care centres for infants, and that the implication of all these changes will produce an uni-sex society, eliminating the traditional family as the basic unit of Australian society. Your petitioners therefore humbly beg the Parliament to: (a) Oppose the recommendations of the Bill introduced to Parliament by Senator Ryan on 2nd June, 1983, and any other subsequent Bill intending to force such uni-sex and anti-family legislation as above in (a), (b) and (c). (b) To set up a Select Committee to conduct a Wide-ranging public enquiry into ways and means of strengthening and supporting the traditional concept of the family as the basic unit of society. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Scott (from 20 citizens). Petitions received. Senator MESSNER(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting , I shall move: That the Senate condemns the Government for the introduction of a discriminatory wine impost and notes: (1) That the 1983 Budget imposition of an excise on grape spirit used in fortifying wine places at risk the future of the fortified wine industry in Australia; (2) That the requirement to pay the excise within 7 days of the fortification occuring is inequitable as returns to producers will not be received until the product is sold several years in the future; (3) That the excise will be reflected in increased costs to consumers of fortified wines of up to 100 per cent; (4) That producers of quality ports, sheries, muscats and other fortified wines will be encouraged either to withdraw from the market completely, thereby restricting consumer choice, or to reduce the maturation for such products, thereby reducing the quality; (5) That this excise will increase the costs of production of fortified wines for export, further disadvantaging Australian producers on overseas markets; (6) That the consequential reduction of fortified wine sales will be reflected in reduced intake of grapes from grapegrowers for these purposes, particularly from grapegrowers in the Riverland region of South Australia, the Leeton- Griffith district of New South Wales and Sunraysia in Victoria; (7) That this will increase the hardship suffered by grapegrowers in these areas causing severe economic problems in decentralised regions; and it calls on the Government to either abolish this new impost or-at the very least-alter the payment of excise arrangements so as to only require payment when fortified wines are released for sale on the market. Senator MASON(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate expresses its abhorrence and indignation at the destruction of an unarmed civilian airliner, Korean Air Lines flight 7, shot down by a Soviet military aircraft on the morning of 1 September 1983, Australian eastern standard time. Ministerial Statement Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce) —by leave-This statement is currently being made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in the House of Representatives. It relates to the tragic episode which shocked the world last week in relation to the Korean airliner. On the basis of information available to it, the Government has no doubt that Korean Air Lines flight 7, en route from Anchorage to Seoul, was shot down by a Soviet fighter aircraft early in the morning of 1 September Australian eastern standard time. There are many unanswered questions surrounding this disaster. The basic ones are: How was it possible for military aircraft to fire on and destroy a civilian airliner in peace time; and why has the Soviet Union been unable or unwilling to produce a coherent, convincing and suitably regretful account of these appalling circumstances? Whatever the answer to these and to the other important question of how the airliner strayed so far off course into Soviet airspace, the simple fact is that an unarmed civilian airliner serving no military purpose was shot down by a Soviet fighter aircraft. There can be no justification for such a barbaric act. Two hundred and sixty-nine passengers and crew, including five Australians, have died. Following this tragedy, the Government has taken action to bring to the attention of the Soviet Government its deep concern and shock and has sought a prompt and full explanation of Soviet actions. The Soviet Ambassador in Australia was called to the Department of Foreign Affairs on 2 September and requested to provide a full and proper account of the circumstances surrounding this unjustifiable act. On the same day, our Ambassador in Moscow, Mr Evans, called on the Soviet Foreign Ministry and made the same request. So far, the Soviet authorities have provided no information in response to our request. They have simply drawn our attention to statements made by the official Soviet newsagency, Tass. Apart from the fact that the statements so far issued by Tass have been totally inadequate and deliberately misleading-they have, for example, made the preposterous claim that the Korean airliner was on an intelligence mission-they are quite inappropriate as communications between governments. The Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) have made crystal clear the Government's outrage and condemnation at what has occurred. The Government will maintain persistent and strong pressure for an adequate explanation. The Prime Minister has personally expressed our condolences to the bereaved Australian families. He has also sent a message of sympathy to President Chun Doo Hwan of the Republic of Korea, who will be paying an official visit to Australia next month. President Chun has expressed his country's appreciation of our support and sympathy. Australia was at the forefront of those countries which called for an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council to discuss this tragedy. This took place on Friday 2 September and will resume on 6 September, United States time. The Australian acting permanent representative, Mr Joseph, expressed Australia's shock and indignation at the downing of the Korean Air Lines flight. Describing the incident as a 'massacre in the sky', Mr Joseph said: Australia joins with other members of the international community in demanding an immediate and full accounting from the Soviet authorities. We have put this request bilaterally and I repeat it here today in a multilateral context. The explanations so far emanating from Moscow about the episode are in our view entirely inadequate. There has been a refusal thus far either to acknowledge responsibility or even to extend a convincing expression of regret for the action. This is deplorable. We appeal to the Soviet Union, if the Soviet authorities give in to the instinct to cover up, it will only confirm the worst fears of those who suspect them most, with repercussions across the spectrum of international relations. Mr Joseph went on to say: In this regard, Mr President, I must say that one cannot but feel profoundly disturbed by the latest TASS statement which was read out to the Council earlier this afternoon by the delegation of the USSR. We see no element of contrition in the statement. It amounts, at least on first reading, to blaming the victims themselves. I would remind the Soviet delegation that some of those victims were Australian citizens and I would say firmly on the behalf of these victims, now deceased, that they were entirely blameless in this appalling episode. We reject this latest attempted evasion of responsibility. I believe that the Senate would fully support the stance taken by this Government before the United Nations. This incident is one of the gravest concern to every nation. It is incompatible with accepted norms of civilised behaviour between nations and contrary to principles of international law. Moreover, it has very serious consequences for the safety of air navigation. Sadly this incident is not the first of its kind. Honourable senators will recall that in 1978 Soviet fighters opened fire on and forced to land another KAL flight, also with some loss of life. Earlier, in 1973 a Libyan aircraft strayed unwittingly over the Sinai Desert and was shot down by Israeli fighters with a loss of over 100 passengers and crew. That action was taken only after the pilot acknowledged, but did not heed, the warnings and signals given by the fighters. Furthermore, the Israeli Government promptly provided details of the incident, issued a statement expressing 'deep sorrow' at the loss of life and announced ex gratia payments of compensation to the families of those killed in explicit deference to humanitarian considerations. Mr President, there is a grim irony in the fact that the Soviet representative to an emergency session of the International Civil Aviation Organisation, ICAO, in February 1973 described that incident as a 'criminal act of international terrorism' and said that 'ICAO could not remain aloof from the barbaric act committed by Israel.' In 1955 compensation was also offered by the Bulgarian Government after its air force had shot down an Israeli airliner in Bulgarian airspace killing 64 passengers and crew. The Bulgarians offered to pay compensation to the families of those killed, to punish 'those responsible for the catastrophe' and to take measures to prevent a repetition of such incidents. There are, therefore precedents for the kind of response which the international community has every right now to expect of the Soviet Union. Mr President, there is another dimension to this tragedy, to which I would like to draw the attention of the Senate. The incident is a reminder of the consequences of continued hostility and lack of communication and dialogue in the Korean peninsula. Australia has recognised two states and two governments on the Korean peninsula since 1974. Other western nations which have relations with the Republic of Korea, South Korea, have made clear that they would be prepared to recognise the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, North Korea, if the DPRK and its friends, including the Soviet Union, would come to terms with the reality that there has existed in South Korea for over 30 years a sovereign government, the Republic of Korea. It is our firm conviction that the continuing failure of the Soviet Union and others to recognise that reality, while attempting to deny the Republic of Korea its legitimate place in the international community and its rights in international law has contributed to the circumstances in which this appalling action has taken place. Mr President, Cabinet discussed this matter yesterday and examined possible future action which Australia, together with other nations principally affected, might take. In its deliberations the Government was mindful of the calm and deeply moving words of Mr Ray Grenfell, the brother of one of the Australian victims, who after expressing his shock and disbelief at the destruction of an unarmed passenger aircraft said: 'But we don't believe there should be any further violence or retribution-one act like that does not deserve another act'. The Government has decided to continue to press the Soviet authorities for a full accounting of their actions. We are examining what steps might be taken to strengthen the safety of international civil aviation. We are supporting the convening of an extraordinary meeting of the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organisation in Montreal next week. There we will seek a full accounting by the Soviet Union and a thorough impartial investigation in accordance with the Chicago Convention. The shooting down of the Korean aircraft was a clear infringement of customary international law and of the principles underlying the 1944 Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation, to which the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is a party. It is open to the Government, under international law, to claim compensation from the USSR for the loss of Australian lives. We are giving close consideration to this possibility. Obviously any amount of compensation will not recompense the grief of those families who have lost loved ones in this disaster. The Government regards this tragedy as an affront to the international community. As a result, Australia will seek to co-ordinate its response as widely as possible with other countries and particularly with the countries of the Asia-Pacific region. In this connection, the Prime Minister spoke with the United States Secretary of State, George Shultz, on 5 September and has confirmed that our attitude to this disaster is closely consistent with that of the United States. President Reagan's strong, clear and measured statement this morning expresses the profound concern and abhorrence felt by all civilised countries at what has occurred, while keeping open the channels of communication essential to preserve international security. Mr President, the Soviet Union is now seeking to evade its responsibilities, to shift the blame, and to categorise the justified international outrage at its action as confected indignation for propaganda purposes. The Government reiterates that the Soviet Government must provide a full and adequate account of this tragedy. I am sure that the Senate will join me in calling on the USSR to cease hiding behind evasive statements and to accept its responsibilities before the international community for the tragic consequences of its action. Mr President, I seek leave to move a motion arising from this statement. Leave granted. Senator BUTTON —I move: That the Senate- (1) Expresses Australia's shock and indignation at the totally unjustified destruction of a Korean Airlines Boeing 747 by Soviet fighter aircraft; (2) Extends its deepest sympathy to the families of the Australian and other victims; (3) Calls upon the USSR to give a full, truthful, prompt and appropriately regretful account of this tragic episode; (4) Urges the international community to take measures to prevent the recurrence of such a tragedy; and (5) Supports the response of the Australian Government as outlined in the foregoing statement. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(2.19) —On behalf of the Opposition, I support generally the views put forward by the Government and I support in general terms the motion moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button). However, I wish to extend somewhat the motion moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I move: Leave out paragraph (5), insert the following new paragraphs: '(5) while supporting the response of the Australian Government to date, as outlined in the foregoing statement, requests the Government to formulate further measures that could be taken in the event of the Soviet Union failing to respond to the request in paragraph (3) and to press immediately for just compensation for the families affected by this disaster; and (6) condemns the Soviet Union for its barbaric act'. In moving the amendment the Opposition expresses the hope that the Government will feel able to accept it in recognition of the abhorrent behaviour of the Soviet Union, behaviour which is described in the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) as barbaric. Should this not be the case we would regret the rejection but we would not wish to divide on the matter because it is a matter on which we think it is important that the Senate should adopt a unanimous response. In speaking on behalf of the Opposition I wish to make the same statement which is being made on behalf of the Opposition in the other place by the honourable member for Kooyong, Mr Peacock. The Opposition joins with the Government in condemning the Soviet Union for the shooting down of a South Korean Air Lines aircraft and the tragic loss of life caused by this callous act. This barbaric and savage action was both inhumane and illegal. It was a senseless and impulsive act of murder which will cast a dark shadow over the Soviet Union and its credibility in the international community. It has shown the Soviet Union to be governed by leaders who place little value on human life. That may already have been revealed by their behaviour in Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan. It may already have been revealed in the treatment of political dissidents. But there could be no clearer example of the Soviet Union's callous disregard for human life than in the shooting down of an unarmed, civilian aircraft with 269 people on board. This incident tested the value the Soviet Government places on human life. It is acknowledged that the South Korean aircraft strayed into Soviet territory . It must be understood that that territory is of great military sensitivity to the Soviet Union. But instead of guiding the aircraft back on to its course, the Soviet authorities shamelessly murdered 269 innocent men, women and children, amongst whom were five Australians. It is cause not only for reflection but also for grave concern that a super-power with the potential to destroy mankind can over-react to a minor infringement of its air space with total indifference to humanity. Moreover, by defying international law, the Soviet action has very serious consequences for the safety of air navigation. It was a breach of the 1944 Chicago convention on international aviation. As the Prime Minister pointed out, it was contrary to the 1966 and 1973 International Civil Aviation Organisation resolutions calling on states not to intercept except as a last resort-and 'intercept' does not mean shoot down. Also it was an act of legal hypocrisy. The Soviet Union was quick to charge France with illegality when, in 1961, the French Air Force intercepted a Soviet civil aircraft flying without authorisation through French air space by firing a warning shot at it. On that occasion the Soviet Union stated: Since when has it become a custom to identify an aircraft by opening fire . . . ? The Soviet Government must ask itself the same question today. Mr President, the actions of the Soviet Union cannot be allowed to pass without censure. No nation , however powerful, can flout the accepted international principles of civilised behaviour with impunity. Indeed, a major power such as the Soviet Union has a very great responsibility to uphold those principles in order to guarantee a more peaceful world. For this reason, the Opposition supports the measures which the Leader of the Government has outlined to the Senate today. But the Government should formulate further measures that should be taken against the Soviet Union, if the Soviet Government fails to provide a full, truthful, prompt and regretful account of its behaviour. Of course, there is very little sign so far of its wishing to do that. In this context I mention the possibility of acting to restrict the access of Soviet cruise ships to Australian waters and the possibility of suspending bilateral trade talks with the Soviet Union. The Government also should press immediately for full and just compensation for the relatives of those killed in the disaster, as the United States Administration is doing. The fact that the Soviet Union acted illegally demands, under international law, the payment of compensation. In line with the Government's resolution, the Opposition urges the ICAO or other appropriate institutions to take measures to prevent a recurrence of such a tragedy. Measures should also be taken within ICAO to bring the Soviet Union to account for its disregard for international air law. I join with the Government in stressing the vital importance of Australia acting in concert with other Western nations and our regional neighbours in taking measures against the USSR, if they are to be fully effective. The Opposition has noted with approval the decisions announced today by the President of the United States, and welcomes the Government's commitment to act in consultation with the United States. In conclusion, let me repeat that the Opposition, and indeed all Australians, are saddened and horrified at the atrocity committed by the Soviet Union. It was uncompassionate and inhumane slaughter. It was a grossly irresponsible act in defiance of international law. It was an act which showed the Soviet Government to be totally indifferent to the dignity of mankind, to the point of taking lives. Finally, let me express on behalf of the Opposition our deepest sympathy to the relatives of the Grenfell family and Miss Jan Moline, the Australians who were so tragically murdered in this recent event. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(2.27) —The Australian Democrats join in the general spirit of this debate and in the views expressed in the Government's motion. We convey our sympathy to the relatives of those people of all nationalities who were killed in this tragic-one cannot call it an accident- incident, Mr President. We basically approve of the more positive nature of the amendments proposed by the Liberal Party and will support it. We agree that the act was barbaric. It certainly was and we should say no less than that in describing it. As the Opposition has said in its amendment: 'We condemn the Soviet Union for its barbaric act'. We also believe that the question of compensation for the families of Australian victims should be pressed as firmly and as soon as possible. This should be, and I believe will be , done by governments all over the world on behalf of nationals who were in that aircraft. It is most important that the Soviet Union should feel the economic spur in this matter one way or another, should realise that this sort of incident cannot take place without cost; that tears, the wringing of hands and apologies and explanations which come cheap enough heaven knows, are not enough. The payment of compensation in respect of those victims should be carried out on a world-wide basis. Our part is to call for it on behalf of our citizens and leave to others calling for it on behalf of theirs. I will not go over all the facts which have been so laboriously put over the last few days and the rather cryptic nature of the circumstances that led to the incident. Aircraft are terribly vulnerable, yet tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, of people travel in them every day. The loss of lives in this incident becomes an act of peculiar brutality in view of the vulnerability of the people who travel in aircraft. They have no chance of escape whatsoever. I think that is what made people feel that this incident was so abhorrent. Yet this is a world which is becoming increasingly more brutal. What we have witnessed here is only a part of that brutality and I think it has to be recognised by all citizens of good intent that the world is not becoming a better place, rather a worse place, and fast. It is a fact that the number of civilian casualties has increased substantially in each successive war of the last century. A nuclear war would cause monstrously more casualties of innocent civilians. In fact, it would probably kill more babies and children of tender years than would perhaps the strength of all the armies in the world. If we are talking about brutality, have we any right to duck out on that prospect? Thus, this incident, which is tragic and important in itself, is also an example of a deeper and much more disturbing aspect in the world. I place that aspect in three categories. The first is that the world is becoming more brutal. People now accept on their television screens the portrayal of bodies, tortured and dead. We hear of instances such as occurred in East Timor where 100,000 to 200,000 people may have died. We are not touched and moved by that to the extent that the world once might have been. That is a signal condemnation of the loss of the power of humanity and a harbinger of a most unpleasant future for the race as a whole. We should speak out whenever this brutality occurs and never condone it under any circumstances. The second point is that the destructive power of weapons is greater and the aggressor is further from his victim. It is one thing for a Soviet pilot perhaps to have 260-odd people lined up in front of him, be given a sword and be told: ' Here, decapitate these people one after another'. It is another thing for him to sit in the isolation of his cockpit, comforted by the fact that he is being directed by a chain of command somewhere-something which he does not question and something which he allows to overrule his will and his responsibilities as a human being-and to fire a missile which has just the same effect as if he did in fact execute those small children and babies with a sword or an axe. That is something that we have to recognise also when we talk about war and its means. The third and final point I want to make-I do not think we should prolong this debate unduly-is the paranoid nature that interzonal conflict has adopted. The earnest of that is provided by this particular incident. We are now looking at an interzonal conflict in an area where everything is on a hair trigger, where nerves are stretched taut. People who are using these weapons are prepared at any time for a conflict which might be a nuclear conflict and where even seconds in striking can count. These are the sorts of strains that no human being on the face of the earth should be called upon to carry. We have not matured or developed as a race or as a species to the extent that that is tolerable. If it continues, it can lead only to more incidents of this kind. That is the lesson of this incident and it is a lesson that I will never forget. The shooting down of this jumbo jet is an object lesson on how easily much worse things could happen, how easily a nuclear conflict could start. If it had not been a misunderstanding about a jumbo jet confused perhaps with a reconnaissance aircraft and fired at with an ordinary heat-seeking missile, if indeed it had been thought, because of some accident, that missiles with atomic warheads were in flight, which is, after all, only a quantitative and not a qualitative difference, the consequences of this incident could have been a conflagration from which the planet might have had very little chance of surviving. A decision was made by a commander with a military mind, trained to have a military mind and trained to react quickly to a situation which was seen as confrontative or possibly dangerous. That confirmed his tendency to respond only in a violent method without any regard for human life. If we do not believe that that could extend to a larger conflict, we are sillier than I think we are. In the event of that larger conflict or threat, the same military mind could well be itching to use his biggest toy, a nuclear weapon. Some of us here heard that most decorated officer in the United States Army, Colonel David Hackworth-the man who believes this, as I believe it, and on which the film Apocalypse Now was based-say just that. He has been in charge of nuclear weapons in his time and he confirms that indeed only a hair trigger has to be pulled for that larger conflict to start. We need to take a step into the next dimension of last week's tragedy and to consider its implications. The continued stockpiling of nuclear weapons by both sides must make a nuclear conflict more likely and that puts at risk many more lives-an appalling multiplication of the 269 innocent people who died last week. So, while condemning this atrocity, we believe that Australia should also put all possible pressures on the super-powers to reduce their nuclear stockpiles or at least not to increase them. If they are not increased moneys now spent on nuclear armaments could be spent elsewhere. Half the engineers and half the scientists in the world are now working on producing weapons. If that could be avoided then at least some of the strains of the world could be altered and perhaps, from a purely economic point of view, the likelihood of war could retreat. Of course, the people of the world understand this and they will understand it all the better for what happened last week to the airliner. A million people marched in New York last year over worry and concern about that kind of conflict. It is much easier to slide downhill than to struggle uphill. It is much easier to do nothing than to try to take some positive action on this sort of thing, to make decisions which may not at first sight be welcome and which may involve some strain or stress or discussion. I think we must do that. We must now carefully question our involvement in the whole zonal and nuclear war machine including our exports of uranium. The view of the Australian Democrats on that matter is well known; I do not have to stress it. We should also, I think, look carefully even at ANZUS and the presence of foreign military bases in this country. We ought to do that for the sake of the people living in this country and for their continued survival. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(2.36) —I join with other senators who have expressed condolences to the relatives of the victims who were killed when the Korean Air Lines Boeing 747 aircraft was shot down by the Soviet fighter aircraft. I also support, and I hope the Government will support, the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney). I feel confident that, had the Government been consulted about the amendment prior to its being put down, the Government would, no doubt, have given consideration to it. But this, of course, was out of the hands of the members of parliament. We are now faced with the situation of Parliament meeting and considering a demand for us to take a stand as leaders in this community. As the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said, there is no question that this was a barbaric act deserving condemnation. But the act reflects the barbaric attitude that underlies the Soviet system. One thing that this act tells me is that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is governed by a military dictatorship. There is no question about the fact that in the two hours preceding the shooting down of that plane, information would have been relayed to the Kremlin from the area and that the instructions then given to the fighter pilot were clear and concise 'take fire; fire' with the probable result that the heat-seeking missile struck an inner engine, giving the people on that 747 aircraft something like 12 minutes to consider what had happened to them. It was a deliberate and barbaric act of military dictatorship whose external policies are determined by its military ambitions and whose internal policies are governed by secret police. I am sorry that Senator Mason took the opportunity to extend this debate. To place this matter in its right context I suggest that if anything proved the need for the absolute necessity of the West to ensure that there is a deterrent, it was the shooting down of the Boeing 747 and the underlying barbaric system that supported that act. It certainly proves that the West must maintain its strength. Finally, I suggest that there are measures which we use as a parliament and, as a people, can adopt. Unfortunately, too many people in the free world give succour to the military dictators in the Kremlin. They do this in a number of ways. They do it by giving some cognisance to the trappings of democracy that these people display. Everyone knows, of course, that the Parliament in the USSR is a greater circus than the Moscow Circus, that trade unions in the USSR are bogus, that they are arms of the state which support the burdens that are placed upon the workers of that country and, indeed, the slave labour workers from outside that country who are working in the Soviet Union. I suggest that one of the actions the Government could take would be to indicate to organisations such as the trade union movement in Australia that they should think carefully about having relationships with bogus trade union organisations in the USSR. It is not so long ago that Alexander Sheletpin was the President of the AUCCTU, which is the trade union movement in the USSR, and came to that position from being head of the KGB. The Parliament will have the opportunity later this month, in Seoul, as it turns out, at the meeting of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, to make known the feelings of the people of Australia, and the parliaments of the whole world, through the IPU, could make a very vigorous and real protest against the Soviet Union. I believe that these sorts of measures ought to be formulated. I support the Prime Minister and congratulate him for being so forthright in his immediate condemnation of this barbarous act, and I support him in his initiative in making this statement to the Parliament. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry and Commerce)(2.42) —in reply-The Government received somewhat short notice of the Opposition's amendment. I do not complain about that; everything has been at somewhat short notice in relation to this matter. Senator Chaney, as Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, informed me that it was not intended that this matter should be pursued to a division. I want to say that, in preparing the statement, the Government regarded it as an appropriate and adequate statement in the circumstances to which the statement refers. In that context we regard the Opposition amendment as not being necessary and as redundant. I want to make it quite clear that the Government is not opposed to the spirit of the Opposition's amendment. I think we have all been in politics long enough to understand it. We are not opposed to the thrust of it. I felt that I should make clear what action the Government would take in that respect. The PRESIDENT —The question is that the words proposed to be left out by Senator Chaney's amendment be left out. Those of that opinion say aye, against say no. I think the noes have it. Senator Chipp —Mr President, I raise a point of order. You obviously can count far better than I, but I would have thought that the voices were with the ayes. The Australian Democrats certainly voted with the ayes. However, in view of the situation and in view of what Senator Chaney has said, we will not be calling for a division and will abide by your ruling. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Senator PETER BAUME —My question, which is directed to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, concerns a book review in relation to which she tabled certain documents in the Senate on 25 August. I ask the Minister whether the text she tabled on 25 August was the exact text she sent for publication. Senator RYAN —Mr President, the answer is yes. Senator PETER BAUME —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. I thank the Minister for her answer. My supplementary question is: When the Minister on 25 August tabled copies of pages 157 and 158 of the book being reviewed, was it to source two quotations, one on each of the pages tabled, which she had included in her text for subsequent publication? Senator RYAN —I have a little difficulty in answering the question quite as precisely as Senator Baume obviously wants me to because I do not have the copies of the extracts. Senator Peter Baume —The two pages that you tabled each contained a quotation. Were they in the text you put in? Senator RYAN —No. Let me clarify the position. The text which I tabled of a review I wrote of Shirley Williams's book Politics for People is the text as I submitted it to the Sydney Morning Herald. The Sydney Morning Herald made editorial changes attributing to me one statement of Shirley Williams's. I have since written to the Sydney Morning Herald to correct that. I recall that the newspaper interpolated another quotation from the book which I had not used. I am unclear as to why Senator Baume is pursuing this as he has the text of my review, the review as published by the Sydney Morning Herald and the relevant pages of the book that I reviewed. Therefore, I really do not know what confusion he is labouring under and which he is seeking to clarify by asking these questions. Senate TATE-Has the attention of the Minister representing the Treasurer been drawn to remarks made by Mr Eric Risstrom of the Australian Taxpayers Association in Launceston last Saturday to the effect that the newly introduced withholding tax is fair and equitable? Did Mr Risstrom, in addressing the annual luncheon of the Launceston Chamber of Commerce, say that many of the building industry organisations such as the Master Builders Association were being dishonest in their representations of the tax? Further, can the Minister indicate whether the Australian Taxation Office is processing applications for exemptions or variations at a satisfactory rate? How many applications have been granted to date? Senator WALSH —My attention was drawn yesterday to the statement by Mr Risstrom in which he said, among other things, that the withholding tax is fair. As Senator Tate said, some of the complaints that the Master Builders Association and others have raised about the tax are downright dishonest. Mr Risstrom is, of course, right. He might have added that some of the assertions made by members of the Liberal Party, particularly in Western Australia, have been equally dishonest. With respect to the second part of Senator Tate's question I am advised by the Treasurer that at the close of business last Friday-I will use round figures-15, 000 applications for exemption certificates had been received, of which 13,000 had been processed, and more than 38,000 applications for variations of rate had been received, of which nearly 37,000 had been processed. That is a very satisfactory rate of processing the applications which have been received. As Senator Tate would know, the Government announced a fortnight ago that if the Taxation Office was unable to process applications which had been submitted before the end of August temporary certificates of exemption would automatically be granted. Under some other conditions temporary certificates of exemption would also be granted. In other words, the administration has been handled satisfactorily. To the marginal extent that there are still problems, the Government has altered the original proposal to accommodate those. The scaremongering claims of some industry groups and members of the Opposition sitting across the aisle and in other places, who supported those groups, have been thoroughly discredited. Senator DURACK —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. I refer to the opinion he gave to the Prime Minister, dated 29 August, concerning the question of the prosecution of Mr Young for a breach of the Crimes Act, which opinion had been requested by the Prime Minister. I refer the Attorney particularly to a paragraph on page 8 of the opinion under the heading 'Need for Deterrence' in which he said: In the official secrets area, sanctions that have been traditionally regarded as applicable and appropriate to Ministers are not those of the criminal law but the political sanctions of resignation or dismissal. The sanction of resignation has already, of course, applied in the present case. I ask: Does not this statement by the Attorney-General strongly indicate that the vacancy in Cabinet caused by Mr Young's resignation should be filled without delay? Does the present position mean that in the near future Mr Young may return as a member of the Cabinet Sub-Committee on National and International Security? Senator GARETH EVANS —No implications, one way or the other, of the kind adverted to by the honourable senator either can be or should be read into the particular opinion that I wrote for the Prime Minister and which has been made publicly available. The particular remarks to which Senator Durack referred were made in the very specific context of the proper grounds upon which the discretion to prosecute should be exercised in the event that it ever became clear that a technical offence had been committed. It was in that context, and that context only, that my remarks were written and it is in that context, and that context only, that they should be read. Senator CROWLEY —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. In view of the recent attempt, or seeming attempt, by Mr Holmes a Court's Bell group to take over the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd, is the Government presently considering altering the National Companies and Securities Commission legislation to prevent this type of activity, which must cause considerable concern to small shareholders and which results in huge profits to companies attempting this type of take-over? Senator GARETH EVANS —The matter to which Senator Crowley adverts was discussed, albeit briefly, at the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities in Melbourne last week. It was decided that no action of a legislative remedial kind was in fact appropriate. There is no doubt that Mr Holmes a Court's reported take-over of the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd is to be construed, as indeed it has been by every financial commentator who has written about it, as not so much a take-over attempt properly so called as rather one that should be regarded as a sophisticated attempt in capital raising and in changing the capital base of the Western Australian company in question. As I understand it and as the Ministerial Council understands it, BHP has agreed to treat the matter as a take-over bid in the ordinary way and has not sought from the National Companies and Securities Commission exemption from the obligations imposed upon it by the present take-over code. In the event that circumstances of this kind were to recur in the future and it became clear that oppressive obligations were being placed upon recipients of take-over bids in circumstances where there might be reasonable doubt as to whether a bona fide take-over was in fact being contemplated, there is no doubt I believe, in the light of last week' s discussions, that serious attention would be given by the National Companies and Securities Commission to the exercise of its discretion to exempt such target companies from the very substantial, wide-ranging and expensive obligations that the present legislative code places upon them. But in the absence of such a claim being made by BHP in this case, it does appear that Mr Holmes a Court has found his way yet again through the legislation in a very sophisticated fashion and it remains to be seen how the market responds to his particular adventure. Senator CHIPP —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment. Is the Minister aware of the large advertisements placed in major newspapers recently by the Roxby Downs joint venturers claiming, among other things, that nuclear energy is reponsible for no deaths or injuries from radiation and that no nuclear reactor has ever provided material for nuclear weapons? Is the Minister aware that these two claims are demonstrably false and quite clearly are lies? Is the Minister aware that, according to the United States Academy of Sciences, the United States nuclear power industry will have been responsible for 2,000 cancer deaths by the year 2000 and that even in Australia a man died from leukemia after radiation exposure from the nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights in April 1977? Is the Minister aware that Britain, India and possibly many other countries have used civilian nuclear power reactors as sources of materials for nuclear weapons? Given these facts, will the Government act on what appears to be a breach of the Trade Practices Act, sections 52, 55 and 55A, which is designed to ensure that a company does not engage in misleading or deceptive conduct? If breaches are established, will the Government prosecute the joint venturers? Senator RYAN —I am sure that the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, like all other Ministers in the Government and all other members and supporters of the Government, is aware of the great dangers associated with the use of nuclear weapons and, indeed, with the role that the acceleration of the nuclear fuel cycle plays in creating hazards of various kinds, including health hazards. It is because the Australian Labor Party is aware of the kinds of hazards to which Senator Chipp's question adverts that it has resolved the anti-uranium policy which is the policy of this Government. However, with regard to the specific matters that Senator Chipp brings before the Senate today relating to the advertisements concerning Roxby Downs, I have notified the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment of Senator Chipp's claims about the misleading nature of those advertisements. I will refer the advertisements and Senator Chipp's question to the Minister. I am sure that if, in his judgment, it is proper to investigate alleged breaches of sections 52, 55 and 55A of the Trade Practices Act, then he will do so and report the results to Senator Chipp. Senator ROBERT RAY —I direct my question to the Minister for Resources and Energy. What reasoning lay behind the Federal Budget decision to give approval for Esso-BHP to export crude oil from the Fortescue field in Bass Strait? Does the Government see any disadvantages in allowing the export of that oil, possibly up to 27,000 barrels a day, considering that new oil gives the Government no levy revenue? In view of the fact that Australia is currently 66 per cent self-sufficient in crude oil but that failing new discoveries this figure is expected to fall to 22 per cent by the year 2000, what priority is the Government placing on the conservation and responsible use of non-renewable fossil fuel supplies? Senator WALSH —Senator Robert Ray has asked a number of questions. Early in its life, shortly after being elected, the Government received estimates from the producers of the likely production in the current financial year of oil from the Fortescue field which, as Senator Ray mentioned, is classified as new oil and is exempt from excise. Subsequently, estimates were received of very much higher levels of production from Fortescue which had indirect implications for government revenue because it appeared at the time that local refiners would not take up all the crude oil which was being produced. In a situation of production capacity surplus to Australia's current refinery uptake, it was quite clear that given the choice between producing excise-free Fortescue oil and shutting down excise payable old oil, the producers would be likely to shut in old oil and to do so to a greater degree in view of the then forecast higher production levels from Fortescue. However, since then it appears that the uplift situation-that is , the lifting of Australian crude by domestic refiners-will be better than it was at that stage. For a number of reasons the likely production from Fortescue will be somewhat lower than was anticipated a couple of months ago. The Government, not wishing to penalise the producers in regard to the production of Fortescue oil, made a decision that a maximum of 18 million barrels of excise-free oil from Fortescue could be absorbed on the domestic market, but if the producers were capable of producing more than that they could export it on a spot basis. Incidentally, oil from other fields can be exported on a spot basis if such oil is produced surplus to Australian requirements. It is correct, as Senator Ray said, that no excise revenue will be received on Fortescue production which may be exported. Substantial royalties of the order of $40m, however, are likely to be received this year by the State of Victoria from Fortescue. In the following year corporate taxation will be received by the Commonwealth. Senator Peter Rae —I hope you will make it clear that that dorothy dixer is from your colleague and not me. It was asked by Senator Robert Ray. Senator WALSH —This is an important matter, and I think it is as well to put it on the record. No representations have been received-by me, anyway-objecting to the decision to allow Australian crude to be exported. I had thought that some people might criticise the decision to export a finite resource. There is, however, no conceptual difference between moving to maximise the absorption of Australian crude as distinct from importing additional crude and exporting Australian crude. That was the way the Government saw it. With respect to research into alternative forms of energy, over a number of years some $26m has been spent on solar research. However, the Government's current belief is that with present technology the potential for solar energy to displace other forms of energy is quite limited-probably a maximum of around 3 per cent of total energy input. Funds have been provided for research into biomass and the production of ethanol and so on, but at present prices these fuels are not competitive with crude oil. Senator MESSNER —I direct my question to the Minister for Social Security. I refer to the Budget allocation of $25,000 for the Disabled Persons International organisation. Is it a fact that in addressing a DPI conference in January the Minister stated that he was prepared to commit any government he was involved with to a realistic level of funding for DPI and that in a telegram during the election campaign the present Prime Minister promised DPI a direct and untied grant of $50,000? Is the Minister aware that prior to the presentation of the Budget members of DPI were advised by his office that DPI would receive that $50 ,000 in the Budget? How does the Minister reconcile his and the Prime Minister's earlier commitments and the actual Budget allocation of half the expected amount ? What assistance can the Minister provide to enable DPI to establish an office and employ a secretary so that it can continue its work on behalf of its membership? Senator GRIMES —The answer to the penultimate part of Senator Messner's question is no, it is not true that someone from my office informed DPI that it would get $50,000 in this Budget. I certainly would not have authorised any such statement to be made. Secondly, I point out that this allocation of $25,000 to DPI is not the first allocation by this Government to DPI-in fact, the Government assisted Disabled Persons International at an earlier date in conducting meetings and in establishing branches in different States-nor will it necesssarily be the last allocation of funds to Disabled Persons International. Disabled Persons International is an organisation which I will continue to support. A number of members of the Disabled Persons International executive are in fact on the Disability Advisory Council established by me on behalf of this Government. Since the Budget I have discussed with at least one executive member of Disabled Persons International the reason that its Budget allocation was $25,000 and not $50,000. We were uncertain of how far DPI had got in establishing its national organisation and I told that organisation, both before and after the Budget, that we would consider a further allocation of funds should that be necessary. The organisation knows that that will happen should it need more money. Disabled Persons International is an important organisation. It is an organisation made up of disabled persons only which at last gives disabled persons a majority say- in fact, a complete say in this case-in an organisation involving their own affairs. They deserve the support of this Parliament; they deserve the support of this Government. We are the first government to allocate funds to this organisation and we will continue to support it in the future. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. Has the Minister seen reports to the effect that the Government's proposed assets test represents a cowardly attack on pensioners? I ask the Minister whether he can say which groups of pensioners will be affected and whether he can comment on how it will affect pensioners who put capital into investments such as those promoted by the Australian Fixed Trusts group, which has advertised as follows: Getting the pension and being eligible for its fringe benefits should be the aim of your investment strategies as you near retirement, no matter how wealthy you are. Senator GRIMES — I have seen reports that the Government's proposed assets test represents a cowardly attack on pensioners. That was said by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Peacock. It is an interesting comment by Mr Peacock, considering the fact that on at least three occasions in the last year he has advocated the reintroduction of a means test for pensioners, which in fact is the application of an assets test on top of the income test. Mr Peacock's consistency in this matter is well known. To answer the last part of Senator Maguire's question, I must say that over the years I and members on both sides of the chamber have deplored the activities of various organisations, including Australian Fixed Trusts, in what one might describe as working the pensioners in order to overcome the income test. It is no secret that the previous Government was making efforts to overcome the very real problem of people circumventing the income test. As Senator Maguire said, organisations which do this make no bones about what they are doing. Australian Fixed Trusts, in its advertising, states: It is possible for even a millionaire to get the pension and fringe benefits on retirement. Getting the pension and being eligible for its fringe benefits should be the aim of your investment strategies as you near retirement, no matter how wealthy you are. The people taking advantage of this situation are doing so at the expense of those on fixed superannuation payments and other fixed incomes, and they are taking advantage of those pensioners on the base rate of pension, because governments of whatever persuasion are unable to raise the base rate of pension to a sufficient level. In fact, these people are taking advantage of the taxpayers. It is for this reason that we, like many other people in the community, have advocated and will introduce an assets test. As for the number of people who will be affected, of the two million pensioners in this country it is estimated that one and a half million will not be affected at all, another 170,000 will be better off and many of the 340,000 who are affected will be affected only marginally. I remind honourable senators that the upper level of assets and income-on top of all the areas which will be exempt-at which a pensioner will first lose his or her pension will be $104,000 for a single pensioner and $170,000 for married pensioners. I suggest that the introduction of such an assets test is neither mean-minded nor does it represent a cowardly attack on pensioners. The majority of pensioner organisations I have seen in the last week in fact agree with the introduction of an assets test. Senator ARCHER —I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer: Is it correct that, although the Government undertook to maintain funding to local government in constant terms, with Australia's inflation running at 11.2 per cent and local government reimbursements at 8.2 per cent our councils are losing heavily on the deal, to the tune of 3 per cent per annum? Does the Minister recognise the unemployment and loss of capital works that this real loss in councils' income will create? Is it the intention of the Government to save this 3 per cent so that it can be paid to those who will now join the rapidly growing ranks of the unemployed? Senator WALSH —The simple answer to Senator Archer's question is no, it is not correct that there has been a reduction in real terms in funding to local government. It does not surprise me that Senator Archer is incapable of understanding why that claim is not correct. The reason it is not correct is that the 11.2 per cent figure, which he claimed as the rate of inflation prevailing-if I remember correctly-was for June 1983 on June 1982. From memory, I believe the anticipated rate of inflation throughout the financial year 1983- 84 over the financial year 1982-83 is 7.5 per cent. Local government funds have been increased by 8.2 per cent. So when the situation is properly assessed-- Senator Walters —You tell local government that. Senator WALSH —Senator Walters would have no chance of comprehending this, even after it has been explained. In real terms, properly assessed, there has been an increase in the local government tax sharing funds. Moreover, there has been a massive increase in all payments to local government of the order of $300m. I have quoted that figure from memory. I will check it with the Treasurer and, if it is substantially at variance with the official record, I will notify the Senate later. There has been an increase, in money terms, of the order of 50 per cent in payments to local government from all sources. I might add that as Commonwealth funding to local governments has been increased progressively over recent years, State funds have been withdrawn progressively. Most notably this has happened in Queensland, but to a lesser extent there has been a tendency in other States to reduce the amount of State government funds going to local government as Commonwealth payments have been increased. It is certainly to be hoped that State governments desist from doing that this year because of the very large increase in total Commonwealth payments to local government. Particularly, it is to be hoped that the Queensland Government, which has been the worst offender in this respect, desists from doing that for the very good reason which Senator Archer stated; that is, that anything which reduces the real level of funding to local government will have serious employment implications and will create significant increases in unemployment. Senator ARCHER —I ask a supplementary question. Are we to assume that that is an undertaking that, in the event of inflation being higher than 7.5 per cent, the balance that has been taken from above that to the current rate of inflation will be restored at the end of the financial year? Senator WALSH —There has never been any such undertaking. The best available estimates indicate that the consumer price index increase will be 7.5 per cent. It is on that basis, that expectation, that there is an increase in real terms, properly assessed, on what economists call a year-on-year basis, in payments to local government from tax sharing. I mentioned before the very much larger increase in real terms in payments to local government from other sources. Senator REYNOLDS —I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. In view of the excellent support services given to Australians living in remote areas by the Bush Nurses Association, can the Minister give an undertaking to have investigated the anomaly which presently prevents the Bush Nurses Association from receiving Federal Government financial assistance on the same basis as that given to the Blue Nursing Service in urban areas? Senator GRIMES —Yes, I will give an undertaking to Senator Reynolds that I will determine from the Minister for Health what can be done about the situation, if it exists. I am sure it does, as Senator Reynolds has said. I am aware of the good work that the Bush Nurses Association does and I would certainly not like to see it in a disadvantageous situation because of some anomaly in the regulations or the legislation in this Parliament. Senator MacGIBBON —I refer the Minister for Education to the latest Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission guidelines, particularly to the section on disadvantaged groups. Why is no definition given as to who is a member of a disadvantaged group? Senator Tate —You would not know; that is for sure. Senator MacGIBBON —I do not have the background that the honourable senator has. Why, in the face of this lack of definition, have the universities and colleges of advanced education been given a quota of disadvantaged students to enrol in 1984? Is the Minister aware that these quotas will be filled, in the most part, by the administrations of the various universities and CAEs lowering their entrance standards, thereby defeating the purpose behind helping disadvantaged groups which, since they are not defined, cannot be identified anyway? Is it not wrong to enrol a student who has demonstrated that he or she does not have the intellectual and other abilities to meet the normal entrance standards? Finally, is it not doing a grave injustice to those students who lie just beyond the entrance standards and who want to go to a university or some tertiary education institution but who cannot lay claim to some undefined disadvantaged status? Senator RYAN —I suppose the most straightforward answer to Senator MacGibbon's question as to who are disadvantaged people with regard to access to universities is that they are those who are not there. On looking at the socio- economic composition of universities and other institutions of higher education it will be found that they still contain quite a narrow group of people. In other words, it is still the case that if one comes from an affluent family, if one is not Aboriginal or not from a migrant group, one is much more likely to go to institutions of higher education than if one is from a poor family, is a migrant or an Aboriginal. Although the participation of women in higher education has been increasing numerically, since the Whitlam Government abolished fees for tertiary education in 1974, it is still the case that in certain faculties of universities, such as engineering, architecture and some areas of science, women are seriously under-represented. So the answer to Senator MacGibbon's question is that we regard those groups who have previously not had access to higher education in this country as being disadvantaged in that respect. However, I should make it clear that the matter of deciding who shall be admitted to universities or CAEs is fundamentally a matter for those institutions. The Commonwealth Government is not going to take unto itself the selection of students. Nonetheless, we have said in our guidelines that we expect universities and CAEs to make special efforts to ensure that previously disadvantaged groups have more access than they have had. We have provided an extra $10m to be made available via the Tertiary Education Commission to those institutions which demonstrate that they are able to be more accessible to disadvantaged groups than has previously been the case. It will be up to those institutions to determine whether they can take more Aboriginals, whether they can take women into engineering courses or whatever. With regard to the other matter raised by Senator MacGibbon, I disagree with him entirely that there is something wrong in saying that people who do not meet normal entrance requirements should be admitted to university. For example, we believe that Aboriginals have been excluded not only from access to higher education but also, in effect, from completing their secondary schooling. This has happened for a number of reasons which have been the subject of many debates in this chamber and which I will not go over now. But it has also been the experience of those universities which have made a special effort to encourage the enrolment of Aboriginals and to provide special support for them-for example , through the Enclave program which the James Cook University in Townsville is operating for Aboriginal teacher trainees-that they have had a high degree of success. We now have a situation where there are some-still very few-tertiary qualified Aboriginals. For example, there is a plan by the University of Newcastle to seek a small number of applicants for its school of medicine. At this stage-Senator MacGibbon may not be aware of it-there is not one medically qualified Aboriginal in Australia. This Government does not believe that that demonstrates that Aboriginals are not intelligent enough to do medicine. It demonstrates that a whole history of disadvantage, manifested in all sorts of ways, has made it very difficult-overwhelmingly difficult to this point-for an Aboriginal person to undertake medical studies and graduate as a doctor. But the University of Newcastle has decided to take positive steps to work with Aboriginal groups in identifying suitable students and providing appropriate bridging courses and assistance. I wish the university well in this task and believe that in a few years time as a result of its efforts we will see the first Aboriginal medical graduate. Perhaps that example demonstrates to Senator MacGibbon what this Government means when it states in its guidelines for tertiary institutions that it expects universities and other institutions of higher education to take active steps to become more accessible. We certainly do not expect that there will be any lowering of standards as a result. We believe that standards of education in the community generally will be raised and in particular there will be a raising of educational and professional standards amongst those groups which previously have been disadvantaged. Senator MacGIBBON —I ask a supplementary question. I am sorry that the Minister did not listen carefully or devote her few resources to my question. I come back to the central point: What is the definition of a disadvantaged person? Is it simply one who is poor, a migrant or an Aboriginal? Senator RYAN —I repeat the answer that I gave to Senator MacGibbon's original question. Senator Walsh —Senator Sibraa told you that-a Queensland Liberal. Senator RYAN —I will not adopt the suggestion of my colleague Senator Walsh that Queensland Liberals are disadvantaged persons because I believe some of them have had access to tertiary education, although it does not always show. In the context of access to tertiary education, disadvantaged people or groups are those who, because of various educational and selection practices, perhaps because of the funding restrictions imposed by the previous Government, do not currently appear in the population of institutions of higher learning. Senator COLSTON —I direct my question to the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. Has the Minister's Department made any investigation into the possibility of paying the tertiary education assistance scheme allowance to handicapped persons who are physically incapable of completing the required percentage of full time study load which would normally qualify them to receive the TEAS allowance? If an investigation has been made, what has been the outcome ? If no investigation along these lines has taken place, could the Minister's Department look into this matter? Senator RYAN —The problems of handicapped persons undertaking tertiary studies and doing sufficient hours per week to qualify them for the TEAS allowance have been brought to my attention by Senator Colston and by other members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives. The problem is that many handicapped people are intellectually well able to undertake tertiary studies but, because of their handicap, do not have the stamina to undertake a full study load. At the moment the TEAS regulations, under which I have no ministerial discretion, lay down a certain number of hours that must be pursued before a student can be eligible for the allowance. Of course, there are handicapped people who cannot undertake that load but who still need TEAS and who still wish to pursue their tertiary studies. My Department is investigating ways of overcoming that anomaly . I believe that it is an anomaly and one which the Government would not wish to see persist. I have also consulted with my colleague Senator Grimes, the Minister for Social Security, on this matter. My Department, in consultation with Senator Grimes, is preparing information about the conditions of the various student assistance schemes. This will be considered at the next meeting of the standing interdepartmental committee on rehabilitation which is scheduled for 27 October. I hope that after that meeting has concluded I will have some more specific and constructive information to give to Senator Colston and, of course, to those handicapped persons who currently wish to undertake tertiary studies. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. I preface the question by pointing out that in an interview reported in the current issue of the Business Review Weekly the Prime Minister said that Labor policy permits Nabarlek and Ranger uranium mines to enter into new contracts and that the proposed Roxby Downs mine can proceed with the mining of 1.2 million tonnes of uranium. I ask the Minister: Have Mr Hawke's remarks pre- empted the Government's uranium policy review or were further contracts for Ranger and Nabarlek and a new mine at Roxby Downs not included in the review? Senator WALSH —As is fairly well known-it has been widely publicised over some time-a number of submissions have been prepared or are in the process of being prepared for lodgment with Cabinet for discussion and subsequent decision, probably some time later this month, regarding the mining of uranium within Australia, and matters directly associated with it, and the international safeguards agreement. I will refer that part of the question which referred to the Prime Minister's remarks to the Prime Minister to see whether he has anything to add to my answer. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. The Minister has not addressed himself to the question. I asked whether the question of further contracts for Ranger and Nabarlek and the question of a new mine at Roxby Downs to mine the very considerable deposit there were included in the review. Senator WALSH —I do not think it would be proper for me to disclose in detail issues that are canvassed in the submissions prepared by a number of Ministers, prior to those matters going to Cabinet. It is known-it has been publicly stated before-that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade reissued negotiating determinations to two companies. The reissuing of those negotiating determinations some months ago did not necessarily imply, so the Minister for Trade advises me, that there was any obligation on the Government to approve any draft contract which might be presented to it pursuant to those negotiating determinations reissued to two companies-six companies having previously had their determinations cancelled. I will refer Senator Chaney's question relating to the Prime Minister's comments to the Prime Minister to see whether he would care to make any further statement. If so, I will report back to the Senate at the first opportunity. Senator SIBRAA —Is the Attorney-General able to inform the Senate whether there has been any change of approach by the Government in relation to the debate on the Family Law Amendment Bill? Will the debate on any clauses or amendments be conducted on a free vote basis so far as the Government is concerned? Senator GARETH EVANS —Having now had the experience of several hours of debate on the Family Law Amendment Bill, and facing the prospect of several more hours of debate, I recommended to the Government party today that, in fact, a free vote be allowed so far as the Government is concerned on a number of clauses which can be characterised in one way or the other as involving traditional moral issues such as the evaluation of the conduct of parties to a marriage and measures also said to be designed to preserve the institution of marriage. Out of the almost numberless amendments that have been moved, or clauses that are still to be considered in this debate, there would appear to be eight particular matters which satisfy that description. I will list them briefly for the convenience of the Senate. First, there is clause 47 of the Bill, which is the so-called divorce by post clause. Then there are four amendments proposed to be moved by Senator Harradine : His proposed new clause 4BA relating to compulsory reconciliation counselling in all applications for dissolution; his proposed amendment to clause 20 relating to proceedings in relation to the dissolution of marriages of less than three years duration not being instituted without the leave of the court; his proposed amendment to clause 20 relating to the introduction of fault grounds for divorce in addition to the two-year separation period; and a further amendment of his to clause 20, also on the question of the irretrievable breakdown period being extended to two years. So far as Senator Walters's amendments are concerned, there are three which it is proposed should be treated on a free vote basis: Her amendment to clause 25, taking into account the conduct of parents in custody matters; a further amendment to clause 30 relating to the conduct of parents in maintenance and property matters; and, finally, a particular amendment that is proposed by Senator Walters in relation to clause 47 concerning divorce by post. I make it clear that this is not as a result of any representations made to me by any member of the Government party claiming to have been stood over or in any other way to have been disadvantaged in presenting a point of view. It is simply a response to the course of debate in this place, and the view expressed in particular by a number of senior members of the other parties that it would expedite the course of the debate were there to be a free vote on these particular matters. It is on that basis that the Government has changed its position and will approach the debate accordingly. Senator TOWNLEY —My question, which relates to the assets test for pensioners, is directed to the Minister for Social Security. I ask: Is it true that, as well as a place of residence, furniture, jewellery, works of art and so on, a caravan and a boat are to be included as non-assessable items? Is it true that a small shack that may have been built by a person as much as 30 years ago and be valued at much less than a boat and a caravan is to be assessable? If those things are both true, will the Minister have the Government re-examine this whole matter of which things are to be included and which are not? Senator GRIMES —When the Government announced its intention of introducing an assets test, it listed the sorts of things which it believed should be exempt from the assets test, largely based on the previous assets test as it existed. It also announced in that same announcement that it would in fact be consulting with various pensioner organisations and other interested groups. That is in fact what I have been doing. In the time that Senator Gietzelt and I have been talking to various groups, the matter of the holiday home, the beach house or the bush shack has come up and the two of us have agreed that we will take this into consideration when the Government eventually draws up the guidelines and the legislation. One would imagine that, if we were willing to exempt assets such as those, we would have to look at putting a limit on them. Whether we put a limit on assets, as some pensioner organisations have suggested, by saying that people can have a car and a caravan or a holiday house or whether we put a limit on the value of the holiday house or whether we put a limit on the value of a residence and a holiday house is a matter for discussion and I have discussed these matters with various organisations. I emphasise that what we did was put down a statement of intent. We announced that we would be spending a couple of months negotiating with various pensioner organisations and others and that the legislation would then come in and that it would take about a year to be in place. In that time we will continue, as we have done, to consult with various groups. I think this is a sensible way to go about it. I am sorry that one group at least appears not to be willing to consult but has made up its mind from the word go. However, I believe that once we have had discussions and consultations with that group we can come to a satisfactory agreement in this area. Senator ELSTOB —My question, which refers to the present Government's commitment to identifying and effectively assisting those most needy in our community, is directed to the Minister for Social Security. Will the Minister advise whether consideration has been given to moving away from the inequitable submission approach for funding of welfare agencies? Does the Government intend setting up a planning model for the States to investigate the greatest areas of need for funding? Senator GRIMES —Yes, as Senator Elstob has said, our policy is to have a welfare system based on assistance to those in need, not only in the income support area but also in the area of welfare services. In the past, in some areas-one can particularly single out perhaps the area of children's services and in some States the area of aged persons accommodation-there has been a maldistribution of funds assistance because the method used to distribute those funds has been one based on a submission model and of necessity those communities with most social cohesion, those communities with most education, those best able to handle the submission and bureaucratic processes have tended to do best. We intend in both of those areas to move to a planning model where we will redirect funds more to those in need than to those with the capacity to make submissions. That does not mean that people will not be able to make submissions. It does not mean that we will not take any notice of submissions. Submissions will still be coming from areas of need and all submissions will be treated responsibly. But there will be, as there are now, some areas from which, because of the nature of the areas and because of the socio-economic position of the people in those areas, submissions may not come at all. In that circumstance we are in consultation with the States and various organisations looking now at methods of overcoming the inequities inherent in a purely submission type of system. Senator HAMER —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. It concerns the effect of the new superannuation tax on members of the Defence Force. I ask the Minister: Is it a fact that less than one per cent of those who join the Defence Force and are thereby compulsorily enrolled in a superannuation scheme can expect to reach the age of 55 years without being earlier compulsorily retired from the Defence Force? Is it a fact that superannuees who retire before the age of 55 years are heavily penalised by taxation if they take a lump sum benefit-twice as heavily as those who retire after 55 years of age? Was the Defence Force superannuation scheme designed in part to provide a lump sum benefit to enable members of the Defence Force to set up in new careers to compensate them for compulsory retirement from the Defence Force at an early age? Why are members of the Defence Force now being penalised in this way, particularly as they do not receive, like airline pilots, excessive pay during their Defence Force careers? Is the Government doing anything about this problem? Lastly, and most importantly, who represented the interests of the Defence Force when the deal on superannuation was agreed between the Government and the Australian Council of Trade Unions? Senator GARETH EVANS —I understand that discussions are presently proceeding between the Minister for Defence and the Treasurer on most, if not all, of the matters to which Senator Hamer has referred. The most I can do at this stage is to refer the question to the Minister for Defence for a detailed reply which I hope will be forthcoming shortly. Senator HAMER —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the Minister saying that the superannuation lump sum tax may be varied again? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am simply saying that, because of the noise being made by the honourable senator and all sorts of other people, it may be that there is a case for the further consideration of this matter, as any sensible government would acknowledge. Such discussions are proceeding. Senator BOLKUS —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. I refer him to reports that South Australia has now joined with Victoria in its contention that truth alone should be a complete defence to defamation actions. Can the Minister say whether this is so and whether such a move is a change from the consensus reached by Attorneys-General in July this year? Is it a fact that at present truth is an absolute defence to defamation suits in Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory? Is it also a fact that, by their adoption of a public benefits concept in uniform legislation, Attorneys-General have adopted a concept which in some States would lead to a more restrictive attitude on truthful reporting and publication? In view of this reported change from South Australia, will the Federal Government now revise its position on this matter to ensure that truth can serve as an adequate and absolute defence in defamation suits? Senator GARETH EVANS —This matter was the subject of discussion at the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General last week. At that meeting I indicated that the position of the Commonwealth Government, the Australian Labor Party in government, had always been one of support for the recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission; that our position was that truth and truth alone should be an appropriate defence, at least in the context of justification , so far as defamation proceedings were concerned, but that there should also be protection for individuals so far as unjustified invasions of privacy were concerned. In brief, the history of the matter is that over a long period a majority of Ministers at the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General have been in favour of not dealing with privacy as part of the exercise in the law of defamation but postponing that to another day, and in the context of the proper treatment of the defence of justification have been in favour of casting that defence so that truth alone would not be good enough, that public benefit would be needed as well. That has simply been a majority position among Ministers. Certainly the Commonwealth Government, like the South Australian and Victorian governments, has expressed considerable reservations about the appropriateness of that approach to the defence of justification. I have indicated to the Standing Committee that at the time the proposed exposure draft of a Bill on defamation is released-we still hope that that will be in the latter part of this year-I will also put down for public consideration an alternative approach to the drafting of the defence of justification, one that is based on truth alone but which at the same time has regard to sensitive private facts and allows aggrieved individuals another course of redress when things have been published about them which are true but which constitute an unjustifiable invasion of privacy. The Government has yet, as a government, to reach a final and formal position on these matters, but I make it clear, in response to all the battering that I, rather unjustifiably, have been getting recently on this issue in the media, that it is still very much a live issue and is not to be regarded as foreclosed. Senator JACK EVANS —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Aviation. As the Government, when in opposition, bitterly opposed the ratification of the agreement which extended the oligopolistic control of Australia's interstate air travel system, what steps is the Government prepared to take now to deregulate Australia's airlines and thus allow our tourist industry to develop to its full potential? Senator GIETZELT —Senator Jack Evans has asked a question that is very much in the forefront of the thinking of the Minister for Aviation, who is currently making arrangements to have discussions with the airlines with a view to coming up with recommendations for consideration by the Government. I am not able to say in precise terms what course those discussions will take. The honourable senator is correct in his assessment of the criticism that was made by the Australian Labor Party when it was in opposition. Therefore, these matters are very much in the forefront of the Minister's priorities at the moment. I will put the matter to the Minister and if he is able to provide any further information I will give a detailed response to Senator Evans. Report The PRESIDENT —In accordance with the provisions of the Audit Act 1901, I present the report of the Auditor-General upon audits, examinations and inspections carried out under the provisions of the Audit Act and other Acts, dated September 1983. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —Mr President, papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to all 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. Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet-Annual Report 1982-83 2. Schedule of Special Flights by the Royal Australian Air Force between 1 January 1983 to 30 June 1983 3. Australian Telecommunications Commission-Service and Business Outlook for 1983-84 4. Australian Wheat Board-Annual Report 1981-82-pursuant to section 54 of the Wheat Marketing Act 1979-together with the text of a statement made to the House of Representatives by the Minister for Primary Industry on 25 August 1983 5. Australian Tobacco Board-Annual Report 1982-pursuant to section 26 of the Tobacco Marketing Act 1965 together with the text of a statement made to the House of Representatives by the Minister for Primary Industry on 25 August 1983 Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.46) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Annual Report 1981-82 Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(3.47) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I wish to speak briefly to the Australian Wheat Board's annual report 1981-82. In doing so, I refer to the sixth report of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations, entitled 'Statutory Authorities of the Commonwealth'. In chapter 3 of that report reference is made to the now long- standing saga of the reports of the Australian Wheat Board. This comment was made in paragraph 3.2.5 of the report: Future annual reports of the Board will be scrutinised for continuing progress in these matters. I have no doubt that the history of the reports is reasonably well known. The position now is that a report has been tabled reasonably within time, bearing in mind the year the report covers. It is relatively unqualified, bearing in mind the nature of qualifications which in previous years have been received by the Wheat Board. On this occasion financial statements, which there had been some difficulty in preparing in previous years, have been included. The qualifications are set out in paragraph (c) of the Auditor-General's report, which states: (c) the receipt, expenditure and investment of moneys, and the acquisition and disposal of assets, by the Board during the period have been in accordance with the Act except that: payments associated with the premium element of sales revenue were not included in advance payments to growers under section 21 and did not form part of the net pool return determined under section 9, certain quantities of wheat received during the 1981-82 season were designated as 1982-83 season receivals (Note 1 (e) to the financial statements refers), and advance payments to growers in respect of some wheat delivered during the 1980- 81 season were made on account of final payments for the 1981-82 season. If there had been qualifications similar to that for an ordinary statutory authority reporting and receiving that sort of qualification by the Auditor- General it would be grounds for an expression of some concern that less than unqualified financial statements had been obtained and that the procedures were obviously defective and in need of some improvement. The report indicates that the Wheat Board has substantially overcome the multitude of problems which have existed for many years and which have been the subject matter of adverse comment by the Senate as a whole and by the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations in particular. I am pleased to see that the day has arrived when the Australian Wheat Board is able to present to this chamber, to the people of Australia and, in particular, to the wheat growers of Australia a report which does not cause great concern and which is getting close to being what I think is the objective of those who manage the Wheat Board and certainly the objective of the Senate-that is, an unqualified report, one which shows that the system is working efficiently and effectively and that the accounting problems have been totally overcome. I point to the fact that there are still in existence very considerable problems around Australia in relation to the marketing of grain. Recent events relating to the Queensland Graingrowers Association, the Grain Sorghum Marketing Board for the State of New South Wales, the Grain Pool of Western Australia and a number of others indicate that further steps are still necessary. I hope that this Government and, in particular, those with a direct responsibility for the operation of wheat marketing and grain marketing systems in Australia, will continue the work which was undertaken last year and earlier to try to improve the system of handling of all wheat and the sale of all grain in Australia and to ensure an effective inter relationship between the various bodies. Without taking undue time, I simply compliment the Wheat Board on having achieved as much as it has. I compliment the Auditor-General on the patience which as been displayed by his staff in relation to this matter. I hope that next year there will be totally unqualified Auditor-General's report on the Australian Wheat Board. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(3.53) -I indicate my pleasure at finding that the report of the Australian Wheat Board is based on very excellent accounts and records. The report highlights the importance of the Wheat Board in the world in which we trade to the Australian farming community directly and to the vast number of other people who are in no small measure dependent upon it. The Australian Wheat Board has taken advantage of amendments to the 1979 Wheat Marketing Act which allow a greater measure of commercial flexibility than had been the case. One is continually reminded of the important role that the Wheat Board plays as the trading representative of many thousands of people in agricultural Australia. There is a tendency today for world trade to be dominated by massive blocs of countries or governments. In that circumstance probably the only real chance of survival for the individual in such an individualist industry is to be represented at an international level by a body that can talk to the trading blocs and governments around the world. That, is the great contribution that the Australian Wheat Board makes. The amendments to the legislation to which I referred included such things as the right to trade on futures markets. This, and a number of other relatively minor amendments, have given a real measure of flexibility to the Wheat Board. The Australian Wheat Board at present finds itself in considerable difficulty in a trading world in which attitudes in America are changing and subsidised European grain is being placed on world markets. As a result, the Board is confronted by very difficult circumstances. We have to look at and take cognisance of this problem. Australian wheat is recognised as equal to the best, if not the best, in the world. Yet, the Wheat Board is confronted by an extraordinary level of subsidy and an unreal price situation in the international market. It is pleasing to note that the report of the Australian Wheat Board is acceptable to the Auditor-General. The report draws attention to the problems that relate to wheat trading and signifies the necesity for the Board to carry out its obligations. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator FOREMAN(South Australia) —In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, I present the report relating to the following proposed work: Provision of air conditioning to the main instructional building, schools of transport and catering, Puckapunyal, Victoria. Ordered that the report be printed. Tabling Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs) —I lay on the table explanatory notes from the Department of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff and departmental expenditure under the Advance to the Minister for Finance for the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet for 1983-84. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I inform the Senate that Mr President has received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) relating to a change in membership of Estimates Committee E. The letter reads: Dear Mr President, I wish to formally advise that Senator MacGibbon wishes to be discharged from further attendance on Estimates Committee E and that Senator Watson be appointed to the Committee in accordance with Standing Order 36AB. Yours sincerely, (F. M. CHANEY) Leader of the Opposition in the Senate Motion (by Senator Button)-by leave-agreed to: That Senator MacGibbon be discharged from Estimates Committee E and that Senator Watson, having been duly nominated in accordance with Standing Order 36AB, be appointed a member of the Committee. Motion (by Senator Jack Evans) agreed to: 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. Bill presented by Senator Jack Evans, and read a first time. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(4.00) —by leave-I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate my second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to prohibit advertisements relating to smoking and to tobacco products in the Australian Capital Territory. I propose this Bill as the Australian Democrats spokesperson for sport and recreation. I do so in an effort to protect the children of Australia and to prevent debasement of sport and recreation. After many years of active involvement with sporting organisations I am appalled at the way tobacco companies use sport as a means of enticing young Australians into tobacco addiction. This Bill is intended to protect young Australians from the influences which encourage them to begin smoking tobacco. It is a tragedy that young Australians are being subjected to such pressures. It is even worse when activities such as sport and recreation are abused by using them as vehicles for luring young Australians into addiction . The Government currently spends millions of dollars on curative medicine relating to diseases and ailments associated with the use of tobacco products. Preventive action can ease the cost and burden which society has to bear resulting from the use of tobacco products. This Bill is a small step towards lifting that burden. A small portion of the money saved as a result of prevention, rather than cure, will need to be invested in the sporting organisations. This investment will be for two purposes. Firstly, the abolition of tobacco advertising will have an effect on the economy of some sporting organsiations. It is therefore appropriate that the Government should compensate sports organisations for their loss in revenue. Such compensation would be insignificant compared with the potential savings gained from reduced health expenditure. Secondly, as acknowledged by the Government in its election platform, sport and recreation has a major role to play in preventive health. It is important therefore that the Government allocate appropriate levels of funds to ensure that sport continues to play an ever increasing role in the community and in the preventive health area. The question is frequently asked whether there is a proven link between tobacco advertising and the enticement of children into smoking. The linkage is indisputable. At the same time as adult rates of smoking are diminishing, there is a dramatic increase in Australia in the rate of children, and particularly young children, commencing to smoke tobacco. The tobacco product has been proven to be habit forming and indeed, to most young people, becomes addictive in their late teens. The tragedy is that at the very time when sports leaders are doing their best to attract and retain teenage youngsters in sport for the good of their health, the tobacco product is sealing the fate of these young people by destroying their lungs and their general health, making them less capable of participating at their full potential in sporting activities. This Bill reflects the wishes of the majority of Australians. In August 1981 a McNair Anderson survey throughout Australia asked the following question, ' Should televised sporting events which can be seen by children, be used to promote cigarettes'. The response was a decisive 79 per cent of respondents answering, no. It is now up to this Parliament to accept its responsibility to protect young Australians from becoming addicted to tobacco products. As with the introduction of seat belt legislation, the Parliament should encourage the protection of health and of human life. It must also acknowledge the burdens and costs which society must bear because of children being lured into the use of tobacco. Several States within Australia have realised the value of protecting our furture generations and are currently contemplating legislation similar to this Bill. This Bill will thus act in conjunction with State legislation to ensure that all young Australians are protected from the advertising which could tempt them into tobacco addiction. This Bill must pass for the sake of Australia's children and the future health of the people of this country. Debate (on motion by Senator Gietzelt) adjourned. (Quorum formed) Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(4.04) —I move: (1) That the following matter be referred to the 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. Eighteen months ago the present Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) took the former Government to task for announcing measures affecting pensioners before they had been fully thought out. As a result, in various places he declared: . . . there has been continual speculation amongst pensioners and other retired people in the community as to just where they stood. Senator Grimes, at that stage, went on to say: There has been considerable anxiety and uncertainty among people who arranged their affairs under the old rules as to just what is happening. Looking back at those remarks of Senator Grimes in March 1982 one is almost forced to believe that he had an insight into the future. Over the last six months, during the life of this Hawke Labor Government, there has been continual speculation amongst pensioners, other retired people and people approaching retirement as to just where they stood under this Government. These groups understandably are anxious and concerned about how their plans, which were made under the old rules and arrangements, will stand up under the Hawke Government, which is continually making changes to that system without adopting a comprehensive approach. Since its election 27 weeks ago the Government has made three major announcements in the field of retirement income policy. We have seen changes to the taxation arrangements relating to lump sum superannuation payments, the introduction of an income test for pensioners over 70 years of age and, as announced in the Budget a fortnight ago, the introduction late next year of the Labor Government's assets test. All these announcements have caused a great deal of confusion. I believe that it has resulted from a failure of the Government to adopt a total, overall and comprehensive approach in this area. The Government's announcements have all the hallmarks of decisions made hastily in a mere effort to raise revenue. Indeed, given that the superannuation changes and the income test are superseded by the assets test, the policy formulation in this most important area could almost reflect Senator Gareth Evans's ethos in doing things ; that is, it seemed like a good idea at the time. Let there be no mistake. The three major announcements made by the Government in this area cannot be seen as part of any consistent or coherent policy. The three announcements are not part of an overall plan. They are in fact unrelated and even mutually exclusive. If this assets test had been the intention of the Government all along, as I stated publicly before the Budget was presented, why did the Government act to deter people from taking lump sum payments so that, according to its argument, they could not 'double dip'? The introduction of Labor's assets test overrides the purpose of those changes. If that test had been the intention all along, why did the Government announce in the mini-Budget that an income test for pensioners over 70 would be imposed from 1 November this year? The introduction of Labor's assets test overrides the income test and means that the whole exercise associated with the introduction of that test was a waste of time and effort and caused undue concern to the most senior section of the community. Where is the consistency in these changes? Where is the evidence of a broad approach? There is none and there will not be until we have an inquiry into the adequacy of retirement income systems generally, with particular emphasis on the need for both an equitable and comprehensive approach . The Government shows no willingness to undertake such a course of action. That is the reason I have proposed this motion today. I wish to take some of the Senate's time to discuss specific items which will provide an understanding of the Opposition's purpose in trying to point out some of the anomalies which exist. First, I look at the question of lump sum superannuation payments. As we all know, despite public commitments made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) during the National Economic Summit Conference in April, the taxation arrangements relating to lump sum superannuation payments were altered in the mini-Budget. To be correct, they were also further changed and clarified on 31 May and 10 August 1983 by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) as a result of discussion and pressure from the unions and sections of industry. There is no need for me to run through those original changes but I remind the Senate of the anomalies and issues which arose after they were announced and caused considerable concern and confusion. Firstly, it took weeks before an announcement was made to clear up the concern that the changes amounted to a de facto death tax which would apply to moneys received by the beneficiaries and dependants of members of funds who had died. Secondly, the original changes discriminated-and the latest changes do not alter this-against Defence Force personnel who are subject to compulsory retirement due to age and rank factors. A range of industries is also touched in that way. Thirdly, they discriminated against the self-employed, who cannot take advantage of the benefits of tax-free employer contributions. Even after the most recent changes this group is discriminated against. It is doubtful that the Government's approved deposit funds will be beneficial to those self-employed people. Fourthly, the changes to be made to the Life Insurance Act, which will determine the rights of return of annuities, are still to be announced. Fifthly, the definition of 'contractual termination payment' and 'bona fide redundancy payment' are still to be clarrified and made public to the people generally. These and other issues were the subject of examination by the joint Australian Council of Trade Unions and Confederation of Australian Industry task force, the report of which should be made public. Hopefully many of these issues may be resolved in that report. Members of the Opposition still have not seen the report, although we called for its tabling during the last sittings of Parliament. We would also like to know what other reports have been commissioned by the Government in the social welfare area, and we seek their tabling. Will the Government be able in various ways to offer people who receive lump sums and roll them over into annuities the assurance that the income they receive will be indexed to take account of inflation? If the Government cannot guarantee that, surely the changes will act as a disincentive for people to join superannuation schemes and people will look to the age pension as the sole source of retirement income. I believe the point to be made from that fact is that this can lead only to higher levels of social security expenditure when, as a major part of the justification for the change, the Government was looking to save money through the elimination of double dipping. If the Government had always intended to introduce this assets test there would have been no need to make lump sums so unattractive-they would have been picked up in the kind of assets test which the Minister has outlined. Senator Chaney —Unless you buy jewellery. Senator MESSNER —Unless you buy jewellery or works of art, as Senator Chaney points out. I turn to the income test which is now to apply to persons over 70 years of age. In the May mini-Budget the Government announced its decision, with effect from 1 November, to introduce that test. Again the Government acted to overcome what it saw as the problem that had bedevilled the provision of decent support for the aged; namely, the way in which resources had been sprayed around indiscriminately. But if Labor's assets test was the Government's grand plan in regard to the whole area of retirement income the exercise was a total waste of time, the many distressed pensioners who contacted my office-and I am sure they contacted others-in the last few days need not have worried about what the Government would do with their pensions. As it is, these people now have two things to worry about; namely, whether they will still have a pension after 1 November 1983 as a result of the introduction of the income test and whether they will still have a pension after the introduction of the assets test at the end of next year. As well, the whole administrative exercise undertaken by the Department of Social Security has been a waste of time, money and effort as it will have to be duplicated due to the introduction of the new assets test. I will deal with that matter in some detail. As I said, two earlier moves caused considerable concern and distress and were rendered obsolete by Mr Keating's announcement of an assets test. That announcement prompted further widespread confusion, mainly about the Treasurer's reference to possessions to the value of $1,500 and $2,500 being exempt from the assets test. Concern was expressed also by people who had invested their money at realistic interest rates after receiving advice from financial advisers. They wondered what was to become of them and of their livelihood. As an example, I cite the case of a man who came into my office last week and was concerned about a stock investment he had. The man held 3,000 shares valued at $13,000, but they yielded only a bonus of $50. Is he to be taxed at the notional rate of 10 per cent and be deemed to have received $1,300? If so, taking into account his other investments in Telecom Australia loans and the rest, that would put his income above the allowable limit for a full pension, so he would lose all the existing concessions. Many others in that kind of situation will be caught by the Minister's proposals. Those people are not wealthy. They have been thrifty throughout their lives and have struggled to put money aside for their retirements. I believe that they should not be penalised for that. Indeed, the system should allow incentives for self-provision for retirement where that is possible. The effect of the Government's combined changes will be to destroy all incentives and to penalise thrift and self-provision. There is no doubt that the changes have caused concern and demonstrated a lack of a comprehensive approach. Such an approach is needed to ensure that the existing systems of income security are studied and any necessary changes to improve their equity and comprehensiveness are made. A Senate inquiry would allow all interested parties to make submissions and present their ideas. The members of the committee would therefore have the advantage of hearing from all sectors-the Government, private industry and the general community-before presenting a report and making recommendations. This would be different from the past practice of government, which has been to announce decisions and then hold discussions to see how the decisions would work out in practice. In particular we heard Senator Grimes say today that the statements in the Budget in connection with exemptions on assets were in fact a mere statement of intent, that they had nothing to do with a specific undertaking. It could have been made a little clearer both by the Minister and the Treasurer in the Budget Speech if that were the intention. I suspect it was not the intention at that time because such broad statements about exemptions on works of art and jewellery, about two motor cars, boats, caravans, et cetera, are not merely statements of intent but are quite clear in their implications for people. It is a crying shame that people did not have this matter explained to them earlier. There are other inconsistencies in the statements made by the Minister and the Treasurer in the last few days. It must be acknowledged that on 3 May 1982 Mr Bill Hayden, the then Leader of the Opposition, took to task very severely the then Minister for Industry and Commerce, Phillip Lynch, when he proposed some kind of means test on pensions. Honourable senators may recall very well Mr Hayden's outlandish statement: It's another kick in the teeth for aged and retired citizens, as well as half a million widows, invalids and supporting parents. These people, of course, are caught by Labor's assets test. He also said: Already many aged people this year are being forced to pay income tax for the first time because rising inflation is pushing their pensions above the taxation -free threshold. Whilst Mr Hayden acknowledged that problem in regard to pensioners in 1982, at the first opportunity the Australian Labor Party had of bringing down a Budget it ignored that point entirely. That will lead to a situation in which people not only will not have their minimum income limits adjusted for inflation but also will find themselves subject to taxation as their pension benefits rise through the impact of indexation in the current financial year. The point is that there is massive confusion in the community about the Government's intentions. I believe that the Government does not know what it intends to do in many of these areas. It is confusing itself. Senator Grimes said last year, referring to the previous Government when it came to office: It is perfectly clear . . . the Government did not know what it was going to do and how it was going to do it. That is true of the present Government when it came to office, but it is particularly true that the various statements made by the Government in the last three months have confused the issue to an enormous degree. I quote another gem from Senator Grimes which applies to this area also: . . . it is just a demonstration of the incapacity of the Minister and the Government to deal with this problem in a reasonable and fair way and to ensure that people who are retired and are eligible for age pensions in this community know what is going on and have some certainty regarding their retirement and some indication that the Government and the Minister know what is going on. If ever that kind of statement ought to apply then it should apply to the motion which I have moved. Uncertainty and confusion will continue to hold sway until there is an overall examination of retirement income systems. It is for that reason that I hope all honourable senators will support my motion to have this matter referred immediately to the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(4.21) —I am flattered by Senator Messner's copious quoting of my previous remarks. I suppose one must be flattered, but many of those remarks were quoted out of context and were taken from speeches made in different sets of circumstances. I must say that I have been guilty of that in the past and therefore I will pass it over. Let me take up briefly one point raised by Senator Messner. He seemed to have been very keen on some remarks I made about a Budget of the parties which are now in opposition . They announced that they might make some changes to overcome the problem of people circumventing the income test in existence at that time. As I recall it-I recall it very well-in the Budget Speech and in the statement on social security policy made by Senator Chaney, the then Minister, some concern was expressed at the fact that people were circumventing the income test. For example, people with money in cheque accounts received no interest on that money and therefore were avoiding the income test. He, I think in a musing sort of way, suggested that the Government would do something about that. He did not specify what it would do but suggested that it might limit the amount of money that could be put into an interest-free cheque account to $3,000. From then on nothing happened. I remember that for month after month at Question Time Senator Giles, in particular, and I asked Senator Chaney what he was going to do about it and when he would introduce these changes. The pensioners were worried about what he would do and how he would do it. Ultimately Senator Chaney said rather shamefacedly that there might be an election soon so he would do nothing. He did not actually say there would be an election soon, but that is what it was all about. So nothing was done. For some months pensioners were told by Senator Chaney that the then Government did not like what they were doing and that it figured something ought to be done about it. In fact, nothing was done and all that anxiety that Senator Messner talks about now was to no avail. Senator Messner complained that our making three changes in the pensions area- we announced two changes in the May statement and one in the Budget statement-is the wrong way to go about things. He suggests that they are internally inconsistent and are causing problems. Let me talk about those changes. The first change concerned the treatment of superannuation lump sum payments. The simple fact of the matter is, as was pointed out at the National Economic Summit Conference and as has been pointed out many times in this Parliament and at various seminars and conferences, that the taxation deductions available to superannuees through both the special treatment of lump sums and the special treatment of superannuation premiums in fact cost the revenue some $2,000m a year. Until changes are made the 40 per cent of people who have access to superannuation, but in particular 60 per cent of that 40 per cent, will continue to benefit considerably at the expense of the other 60 per cent of the work force who have no access to superannuation. The main reason for this is that Australia is unique in its special treatment of lump sum superannuation payments . If we are to introduce a contributory national superannuation scheme, as most people advocate we should, then we have to take heed of the reports of the Hancock National Superannuation Committee of Inquiry and the Asprey Taxation Review Committee which said that while we have this special treatment of lump sums under the taxation system the introduction of a national superannuation scheme is nigh on impossible. So the first reason for doing something about the situation is the unfair taxation advantages afforded those people, and the second reason is the unfair treatment under the social security legislation of that group of people as distinct from people who receive weekly superannuation payments. So in those two situations something has to be done. We announced our intention of taking action and we quite clearly said in the statement of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) that we would consult with the unions, business and the people affected. We have done that. The Australian Council of Trade Unions, being a responsible organisation, has come to an arrangement with the Government, and many sections of business agree with what the Government has done. Senator Messner should know that large sections of the life insurance and superannuation industry agree with what the Government has done. Of course some people do not agree, such as the airline pilots who work 37 hours a month and have plenty of time to consider what is happening to their wages and their taxation. The fact is that responsible people agree with what has been done. But that does not solve all our problems; nor did we suggest it would solve all our problems. We never suggested that the only reason to introduce that change was to prevent double dipping. Other people with large amounts in assets who have not received those assets from lump sum superannuation payments still indulge in double dipping through the schemes contrived to avoid the income test , schemes which have blossomed since the previous Government scrubbed the assets test in 1976. What is more, the then Opposition predicted that that would happen . The pensioners federation at that time opposed the removal of the assets test because it predicted what would happen. People with large asset holdings, in both cash and property, have been able to manipulate those holdings so they are not considered as income under the income test and they have had an enormous advantage over people on small fixed weekly incomes or superannuation payments. They have continued to be in this position. While they are in this position, governments of any persuasion will continue to find it very difficult to raise the base rate of pension and to provide the assistance for housing and rented accommodation that is necessary to have a fair pension system. They also make it very difficult for any government to introduce a national superannuation scheme because such a scheme, of whatever kind that is likely to be introduced, must at the time of its introduction consider those who have just retired or are about to retire. It would need to be assisted out of Consolidated Revenue. While people are able to take out of Consolidated Revenue some $250m to $300m each year which they do not need, it will be difficult, to say the least, if not impossible to introduce a national superannuation scheme. The introduction of an assets test is utterly consistent with our moves made on superannuation lump sums, as is the change to the pension for those of 70 years of age. One remembers that pensioners of 70 years of age and over used to receive a pension completely free of a means or income test. The previous government realised the inequities that existed here and went part of the way by putting an income test on increases in those pensions. The present Government, in an utterly consistent way, extended that to an income test on those aged 70 years and over. It is a very generous income test, a much more generous test than that which aplied to those between 65 and 70 years of age. We realised, as we said in Opposition, that people had prepared for their retirement with that income test in mind and that to introduce a full income test for those between 65 and 69 years of age would have been unfair. These three changes are utterly internally consistent with each other. They are consistent with the introduction of a national superannuation scheme. They are consistent with the introduction of a rational retirement program in this country. For Senator Messner to suggest that the present difficulty and controversy arose out of something which I or the Treasurer did not say on Budget night, I think, to say the least, is unfair. I accept the fact that there was some confusion. I accept the fact that not in the morning's papers immediately after the Budget, but after that, there was a misinterpretation, which I find hard to understand-I do understand it can happen at Budget time when people have masses of papers to read-of the $1,500 and $2,500 extra income exemption. But that has been brought to the attention of the public and the pensioners, since we announced 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'. Given that it has become obvious to pensioners and their organisations that it will take effect 12 months after the legislation comes in. I suggest that there has been and will be an increasing acceptance of what the Government is doing. I make no apologies for not coming into this place and saying: 'Here is what we are going to do. This will be exempt, that will not be exempt, and we are not going to change that view. We will not take any notice of what pensioner organisations and others say'. What we said was: 'We will talk to them and iron out the wrinkles which may arise'. Almost every example that was given to me on talkback radio last week was that not only would people not be disadvantaged by the assets test but also that some people would be positively advantaged by it. In the six examples which were brought to me by the Australian Pensioners Federation last night only two people would be very disadvantaged, and that was very marginally. The others would be either advantaged or not affected at all. I know that this is a difficult area. I am perfectly aware, as is anybody else in this place, that aged people are not in a position to cope with change as well as others in the community. But the simple fact of the matter is that if we are to make changes of this type-I believe changes of this type need to be made-we will always have this difficulty , particularly if there are people in the community who are willing deliberately to stir up confusion. A government which has been in power since 1975 and which, prior to 1972, was in power for 23 years, I suggest, with the resources and the facilities which it had, should have had some idea of a comprehensive retirement package for the people in this community. Clearly, it did not have such a policy while in government and, clearly, it has not had one in opposition. We have the extraordinary situation, as has been reported to me, of Senator Messner supporting the executive of the Australian Pensioners Federation which arrived in Canberra with its programs. The Australian Pensioners Federation is a good organisation which is concerned about what is happening. That organisation is in favour of the abolition of the means test. Therefore, it does not like an assets test. If Senator Messner agrees with that organisation, I ask: Does he agree with its policy in totality? The Federation's policy is for the introduction of probate and death duties; the abolition of the dependent spouse rebate; and the introduction of wealth taxes, capital gains taxes and increases in income tax for the high income earners in the community. If Senator Messner is going to be aware of one part of that organisation's policy, I suggest he has to think about the other part, because at least it is consistent. It recognises that if there is no assets test the money has to come from somewhere else. The Pensioners Federation was willing to put down in a policy, which will be undoubtedly unpopular with many of its members, particularly regarding probate and capital gains tax, how it should be done. Senator Messner just says: 'No, you should not have an assets test'. Nowhere did he talk about the problem of how the funds are to be raised. He ignored the speeches of his own Leader in recent times about the introduction of a means test and an assets test. He came into this Parliament and began nit picking. We have adequate time to sort out any differences and problems that people may have about the assets test. I can tell honourable senators that in the last couple of weeks those suggested problems have been on the margin and most have not been problems at all. I now turn to Senator Messner's motion. He gave notice in the Senate that he would move that a matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Social Welfare . It was a very large reference concerning the whole of the income support area for the aged in the community. The Chairman of that Committee was given a copy of the notice of motion 30 seconds before it was put up. The usual courtesies, such as discussing the matter with the Chairman of the Committee and perhaps the Chairman of the Committee discussing with the Committee whether there was a possibility of considering the matter within its program and within the time specified, were not gone through. I suppose that suggests the notice of motion was brought up in a hurry. I would not suggest that Senator Messner would do that out of discourtesy. I suggest the notice of motion was brought up in a hurry and I suggest it may have been brought up for political reasons. It is clear from Senator Messner's speech here but much clearer from statements which he has made that he intends to use this motion as a vehicle to try to get this chamber to oppose legislation dealing with the assets test and superannuation changes. It is clear that this is a political vehicle which is being wheeled into this place, I suggest, because he fears that the logic and the facts will be against him and, therefore, he will have to get up in this place and say that we cannot pass the legislation because a Senate committee is looking at it, that a Senate committee is examining the situation. I have no worries at all in normal circumstances about a Senate committee or any other committee looking at future retirement incomes policy in this country, although we did have a very lengthy report from the Hancock National Superannuation Committee of Inquiry some years ago, which I advise Senator Messner to read some time. I suggest this matter was touched on by the Henderson Commission of Inquiry into Poverty which looked at it for many years. I suggest it was also looked at by the Asprey Taxation Review Committee and other committees, including the Campbell Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System which had some things to say recently about superannuation funds. It is my understanding that the Australian Democrats may well support the proposal of Senator Messner to refer this matter to the Committee on Social Welfare. As I say, I will not lose any sleep over that, but I make it perfectly clear that the referral of such a reference to the Committee will not inhibit the Government from introducing the legislative changes it intends to introduce. It will not force this Government to delay the introduction of important reforms for the retirement area for another year, costing the taxpayer some $250m to $ 300m in the case of the assets test-because that is how long it will take to introduce the program-and costing the revenue considerable amounts of money in the area of superannuation, thereby inhibiting important reforms for the low income pensioner and low income people in this community. This merely delaying tactic by Senator Messner will not force this Government to delay the introduction of reforms for those in rental accommodation, of reforms for those who are reliant on the base rate pension and of reforms in other areas of social security. The Government will oppose the referral of this matter to the Committee, but not because it is concerned about the Committee. We recognise the fact that, with the numbers in this place, this motion will be carried. We will not bother to divide on the issue. We will certainly co-operate with the Committee if the Committee does seek that reference. But in recognition of the fact that the justification for the reference of this matter to the Committee by Senator Messner in his speech today was based on a few misquotations from me when I was shadow Minister for social security, by absolute misrepresentation of the changes of the Government in the areas of superannuation, the 70-year-old pension and the assets test, and recognising that this is a political stunt, we will formally oppose this reference. I hope Senator Messner has the decency to seek an adjournment so he can discuss the matter with the Chairman and members of the Committee. If he does not and it is still referred to the Committee, we will of course co-operate and view the findings with interest if the Committee has time to finalise the matter before 1984. However, that will not inhibit us from introducing the legislation which this country and, in particular, its retired people need. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(4.41) —If it is going to set Senator Grimes's mind at rest, I assure him that I do not intend quoting, in or out of context, anything that anybody on either side of this House has said about an income and assets test, since it has been made patently clear to me over the years that the only political party in this place that ever has to be consistent in anything it says or does is the Australian Democrats. Everybody else can say anything they like one year and something else the next and nobody seems to mind. It may also be of some comfort to Senator Grimes to know that although the Democrats are supporting the Opposition's motion to have the matter of retirement incomes referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare, we are doing it on two provisos. The first is that it is the only action open to the Senate if it wishes to have retirement incomes investigated in any way. We would much prefer that an independent public inquiry such as a royal commission, although not necessarily with a judge heading it, be established to look into existing retirement income systems and possibly to make recommendations for the future. Because that is not within the bounds of the Senate I seek to amend Senator Messner's motion. I therefore move: Paragraph 1, after 'That', insert the following words: ', although it may be that a more appropriate forum for an examination of existing retirement income systems would be an independent public inquiry such as a Royal Commission,'. If the amendment were accepted the motion before the Senate would then read: (1) That, although it may be that a more appropriate forum for an examination of existing retirement income systems would be an independent public inquiry such as a Royal Commission, the following matter be referred to the 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. Paragraph (2) would be unaffected and would continue to read: (2) That the Committee report to the Senate on or before the first sitting day in August 1984. The second proviso is that our support of this motion referring the matter to a Senate standing committee is not to be taken as any indication that the Australian Democrats oppose the principle of the Government's proposal to introduce an assets and income test. Senator Grimes has suggested that this may be one way in which the Liberal Opposition is attempting to delay the passage of the legislation to bring into effect the Government's proposals for an assets and income test. Previous action on the part of the Liberal Party in this chamber has indicated that it does not make much difference to it whether the legislation has been introduced or not, or has been passed or not. If it suits the fancy of the Liberal Party it will refer the proposals to a committee, as it did with the withholding tax, which not only was based on its own legislation but which it supported with some enthusiasm in the Senate in June. Perhaps Senator Grimes can be soothed by the notion that there is nothing machiavellian-political, yes, but nothing machiavellian-about the Liberals' reference of this matter to a committee. The pretzel antics that members of the Liberal Party engage in never cease to amaze me. Having spent something like seven years displaying little else but intellectual atrophy and legislative inertia they have now decided that they are passionately concerned about pensioners and about the plight of the aged generally. After ignoring the recommendations of the Henderson Commission of Inquiry into Poverty, after shelving for something like seven years the report of the Hancock National Superannuation Committee of Inquiry on a national portable contributory superannuation scheme, the Liberal Party has now decided that the plight of people affected by limited incomes in their retirement should again be studied in depth, and this time, by a Senate committee. The Liberal Party is now talking about shameful attacks on pensioners, after supporting in June the means test legislation relating to pensions for the over 70s. It is now talking about repealing any assets and income legislation which passes through the Parliament this year, if and when it is ever re-elected, after going on the record, as Senator Grimes has pointed out, in recent years as supporting such an assets test as being necessary for equity and to avoid double dipping. Indeed, I understand that at the Victorian Liberal Party conference early this year just such a motion was passed. I find the Liberal behaviour breathtakingly sanctimonious. The Australian Democrats support, as I understand, most thinking people do, the implementation at the earliest possible date of a national portable contributory superannuation scheme. We believe that a secure income in old age should be a right, not a handout; that it is necessary not only for the physical well-being of most people in their old age but also for their psychological well-being. We believe it is the only way in which an equitable and secure income can be achieved for people over retirement age. As I have said, the Liberal Party did nothing during its last seven years in government to implement either of those things. During the Menzies era it managed by slight of hand to take back into the Consolidated Revenue Fund, back into the taxation structure, the element of taxation that was specifically set aside for social welfare payments. It then went on in succeeding years to imply that the pension was a handout for those who had not managed to do well enough for themselves during their working lives. Instead of playing politics over the assets and income proposal the Government has introduced, I suggest that the energies of the Liberal Party would have been far better used in attempting to remove the inequities and anomalies that exist in the embryonic proposals the Government has brought forward. Senator Townley raised during Question Time today the question that has been raised by most people phoning my office, and that is the matter of a holiday home or a shack down by the beach or whatever, which was for some reason omitted from the examples given by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on Budget night. These sorts of things are able to be negotiated. The Government has taken a responsible step in insisting that it will not be bringing forward the legislation in any definitive form until all concerned groups have been consulted and until the reasonable suggestions of those groups have been incorporated. Having moved my amendment to Senator Messner's motion I repeat that we see no harm in referring the matter of retirement incomes to a Senate committee. We believe that an independent public inquiry, such as a royal commission, would be a more appropriate forum, but we accept that it is not within the Senate's powers to do that. It is something like seven or eight years since the Hancock report on superannuation and the Henderson report on poverty were brought down. We hope that this Committee will bring those reports up to date and that it will enable the community to discuss the needs of people after they have retired with a view to establishing some sort of reasonable minimum income which is fair and equitable for those people. We hope that it will not be used by the Liberal Party as some political ploy or grandstanding exercise, producing, for instance, a Liberal minority report that it will wave about under the nose of the electorate come election time. If the electorate believes that a future Liberal government would ever repeal an assets and income test which has saved the Government money, it will believe anything. The Australian Democrats support, with our amendement, the motion put forward by Senator Messner in the hope that it will produce some relevant and valuable recommendations relating to post- retirement income, particularly the implementation of a national portable contributory superannuation scheme, and that it will not be used as a political grandstanding exercise. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(4.51) —I support the proposal by the Opposition for this inquiry. However, I am concerned that it direct its attention in the first place to the problems and concerns that have been expressed by aged persons. I am not sure how it is envisaged that the inquiry will be conducted and whether advertisements will be put in the Press in the usual way for submissions to be made to the Committee. If that is to be done, quite obviously the matters which are uppermost in the minds of aged persons will come forward in those submissions. There has been a good deal of confusion since and before the Budget , much of which has been based on a misunderstanding, perhaps, of what was intended. But some of the other expressions of concern that have come my way have not been so based. They have been very real and genuine concerns about what precisely is intended by the Government with the new assets test. Amongst those concerns have been questions about the equity of, for example, excluding caravans from the assets test but including lake shacks or bush shacks. That has been clarified a little by the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) today in answer to a question in this place. However, it is a matter which concerns people who in their early days invested a small amount in a bush shack. As part of their hobby they may have built it up, it has been used by their family and friends and, now, in their old age they would be disconcerted to see it considered as part of their assets in determining their eligibility for payments. Admittedly, as the Minister said, there may be some need for the Committee to consider whether there should be a cut off point for the value of assets rather than stipulations on the types of assets that are owned. I do not advance a proposition for or against an assets test but I believe that it would be in the interests of aged persons, and, indeed, the interests of the Government and the Parliament, to have a standing committee investigate this reference. One problem does occur to me. The entire retirement incomes system is a very wide ranging reference. However, if Senator Messner, who I understand is a member of the Standing Committee on Social Welfare, is happy to give members of the Committee that reference, so be it. I wish them luck. I support the motion. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(4.56) —I wish merely to refer to Senator Haines's amendment and to advise the Senate that we accept it. I make one observation: It is always rather strange that any action taken by the Opposition is seen as political grandstanding while if it is taken by the Australian Democrats it is always done out of legitimate concern for the people. Amendment agreed to. Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 25 August 1983. Clause 17 (Institution of proceedings). Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(4.58) —When consideration was adjourned, I had just started to talk about my amendments to clause 17 of the Bill. A paper has been circulated showing amendments and new clauses to be moved by me. Honourable senators may find the first three pages somewhat confusing because they are the amendments. If they turn to page 4 they will find an explanation of what the amendments listed in the first three pages endeavour to do. Practising lawyers tell us time and again that it is extremely difficult in matrimonial proceedings , actions for damages or any other proceedings to get the parties to face up to a realistic compromise unless in some way or other there is pressure on them to face what one might call reality. It does not matter that they go before legal advisers who are able to tell them within 1 or 2 per cent the sum of money they may get or the settlement that the court will most probably direct. It is a fact of life that the parties tend to live in a dream world until they face a hurdle that they have to leap and then they apply their minds realistically. They take advice and guidance and suddenly the action will be compromised. That happens so often in the running down jurisdiction that judges will sometimes have three or four actions listed for hearing on one day. Senators may ask how the court could possibly hear three or four actions on the one day. In fact, what happens is that by 11 o'clock in the morning all three or four actions have been compromised and the judge finds himself with the rest of the day, or the rest of the morning off depending upon his program. That is not for any sinister reason but simply because the parties so frequently fail to face up to the reality of life until they actually have to go into the court to fight the case. They then start to seek some reasonable compromise. It seemed to me that that hurdle might be used in order to bring about some solution of the almost eternal arguments which go on about maintenance and property settlements and also custody. I, then, have put forward the proposal that before the parties can receive a decree nisi they must have settled or had litigated questions of property, maintenance and custody. That is the purpose of the amendments. I recognise that parties may endeavour to use such a procedure to delay the decree nisi being granted. I realise that some parties who do not want a divorce to go through will take any steps possible to prevent it. So I have suggested that, as a result of the amendments, the court should have the power to order that the divorce proceedings shall come on for hearing, if it is satisfied that they should. I have made the provision very wide. I also recognised that, unless the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) saw some merit in these proposals, probably they would not go through. So I put the amendments to the Attorney-General. He has been kind enough to give me a paper which was prepared in his office and which he will no doubt elaborate on in some way after I finish speaking. There are some things in that paper to which I would like to refer. I am a little unsure whether I should have my say about the paper at this stage or I can ask the Attorney-General to express his views first and then respond. Senator Missen —Has it been distributed? Senator LEWIS —No, it has not so I will allow the Attorney-General to speak on the matter first. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(5.04) —In response to Senator Lewis's invitation I say that the Government's attitude is one of opposition to the package of amendments proposed by him. It of course appreciates that Senator Lewis has put forward his suggestions in good faith and in a desire to expedite the Family Law Amendment Bill and make it more efficient, in the interests of the system as a whole and of the parties themselves, dealing with the procedure for dissolutions and the accompanying ancillary matters. The problem we see with it is both practical and, to some extent, philosophical . One of the main policy changes that the original Family Law Act, which we are seeking to amend here today, aimed to achieve was ensuring that the divorce proceedings and the related custody or financial proceedings were dealt with completely separately. Under the previous matrimonial causes system, the divorce petition had simultaneously to seek the custody and financial orders sought by the petitioner and all matters were, as a matter of course, dealt with together. This led to the situation of matters being artificially defended-often for blackmail purposes-with unreasonable demands being made. A party would continue to defend a matter in the hope that the other party, who might have been anxious to remarry, would agree, as a result, to a higher financial settlement. That was an intrinsic part and parcel of the way the system operated. The present system is, to some extent, a reaction to that. It is a desire to separate the fact of the divorce from the associated proceedings. It is also a question of practicalities. I am told-this has been discussed with Justice Fogarty, the present Chairman of the Family Law Council who I understand has had some discussions with the Council about this-that the old system became bogged down by delays and many of the abuses that were associated with the old system were a function of all these matters being heard together in this way. The system that applies under the current legislation is that a divorce can be granted, and usually is, within a few months of the filing of the application, but in property settlement matters the delay between filing and hearing can be up to two years. What would happen as a result of Senator Lewis's proposal being accepted would be that in a great many cases it would undoubtedly take up to two years from the date of the application was filed to gain a divorce. That date would, of course, in turn be at least three years from the date of the separation. Senator Lewis seems to have anticipated the blackmail arguments. He would overcome this by giving the Family Court of Australia a wide discretion to dispense with the general requirement in an appropriate case. But as has been pointed out to me and to my officers who have been in consultation with the judiciary on this, a wide discretion to dispense with the requirement would inevitably result in a multitude of such applications being made, if not in every case. What we would have would be an overloaded system becoming further bogged down. I understand that the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act gave some consideration to this kind of proposal and decided that, where possible, all issues between divorcing parties should be settled before the divorce was granted. That is an understandable aspiration. However, the Committee went on to say that it was opposed to procedural changes that would make the divorce decree in all cases dependent on the resolution of other issues until the Court's services were improved to the point where all matters, ancillary and principal, could be dealt with within a reasonable period. That was indicated to be no more than three months after the separation period had elapsed. While one can accept the basis in principle for that particular position, the practical foundation for it simply cannot be accomplished. It would be just impossible to achieve, however much we might like to hope that it would be achievable. Finally, there is one other small point that I would like to mention. I do not have an actual paper in front of me. I am simply speaking from notes based on consultations with the judiciary. Some of the other recommendations that we are seeking to adopt as a result of the deliberations of the Joint Select Committee erode the principle of finality with respect to orders in financial proceedings. We want to make provision-we will deal with this later on-for setting aside property orders under section 79A, widening the grounds for approval of maintenance agreements under section 87 and so on. As a result, we want a situation in which there is, at least in some repects related to property and financial matters, a continuing supervision by the Court. I suggest that it is rather at odds with this kind of policy development which I think most people would see to be an appropriate one, that we should be, by other means-I suggest essentially artificial means-seeking to impose finality. It is important to get the parties to the barrier to appreciate the realities of the situation which they are in, to concentrate their minds on the necessity to reach an accommodation between themselves without relying ultimately on the Court to make all the decisions for them. That is an aspiration which Senator Lewis has expressed. I share every one of those sentiments. I just think it would be impossible. The Government has reviewed the situation pretty carefully since Senator Lewis put these matters before it but does not think it would be an appropriate way of solving what is obviously still a serious practical problem. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(5.09) —Briefly, I support the argument advanced by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). Many members of the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act hoped that they might be able to find a way whereby things could be dealt with at the one time. One recognises what Senator Lewis has said about ordinary litigation. Certainly, things can be speeded up. If people know that they have to negotiate and proceed, they will do that at an early stage. It was obvious, after the evidence we called, that it was quite impractical to suggest that we could lay down rules without doing a great deal of injustice to people and having a situation in which a divorce may be considerably delayed. People would thereby not have the opportunity of sorting out their household arrangements. Remarrying and getting the children into a situation may well be held up for a considerable period if all ancillary matters have to be settled at the same time. Clearly that has never been possible. The money that would need to be expended by the Government in providing so many extra judges, registrars and so forth would be quite considerable and very often , of course, it is not desirable that all the property matters and so forth should be settled quickly, in some helter-skelter way. After the heat has died down very often the parties come to a more reasonable situation. This type of idea was certainly thrown around quite a lot in the deliberations of the Committee and in the evidence given to it but it was not thought to be a practical solution. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(5.11) —I think I should respond to a couple of matters which the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) raised. For example, he said right at the beginning that one of the purposes of this legislation is to separate matters of custody and financial proceedings from the actual divorce. There is nothing in my proposed amendment which would do anything towards not separating them. I do not see any reason why there has to be some sort of hearing at which these matters would be argued together. While I recognise the problems which originally existed under the old system when these matters were all dealt with together and, of course, there was an argument as to whether a divorce ought to be granted, I do not see that that would really apply in the way the Bill is framed at the moment. The Attorney-General also said something which went along the lines that under the new system a divorce can be granted within a few months and usually is. I want to say seriously to the Senate and to the Attorney-General that there are many people in this community who do not believe that that is an ideal situation . Many people in this community believe that once a couple have entered upon the role of being married, have made their vows each to the other, they ought not to be able to rapidly escape those vows in order to get into some other matrimonial situation and then, after they have done all that, start to sort out the problems of their children, the custody of their children, their financial relationships, who is to care for the former wife, how they will divide up the assets that they have acquired over their married life, and so on. Many people in this community think that a couple who have been married for many years ought to give deep consideration to these matters before the divorce is rapidly pushed through. In particular I think of the situation of a wife married for 25 or 30 years or even more who, of course, is way beyond her working expectancy. She has spent up to 25 or 30 years keeping a home and raising children. She could not possibly be expected to go back into the work force. Her husband can walk out of that arrangement and walk into an affair with some other woman and be divorced within a very short time-as Senator Gareth Evans says, usually within a few months of filing the application. Within 15 months of the husband walking out of a marriage which has existed for 25 years or more, she can find herself in a situation in which her husband has remarried and at that stage they are to have an argument about what will be the financial arrangements between them. Many people in this community are of the view, as am I, that those matters ought to be resolved before the husband is able to escape the vows that he entered into so solemnly at the time of the marriage. Senator Colston —It could be the other way round, of course. Senator LEWIS —As Senator Colston says, it could be the other way round. The husband may find that after 25 years or so his wife has left him. This means that perhaps he has to live the rest of his life by himself. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.17) — Could I indicate briefly that I believe that any amendment that attempts to focus the attention of persons who propose to or have filed an application for the dissolution of a marriage on all the consequences of that action, the legal and social consequences, ought to be supported. I know that on the last occasion that we were considering another amendment in the Committee stage Senator Missen was wanting to ensure that the court and legal fraternity have regard to the need for conciliation at every stage. I would go one step further and say that in general I would like the legal fraternity to be required to ensure that persons who come to them seeking to file an application for dissolution engage in counselling. Their attention should be directed to the legal consequences of that action, to the social consequences of that action and to the consequences on their children and on the property of the marriage. As I understand the import of Senator Lewis's amendment, it is to ensure that these consequences are faced quite dramatically prior to the decree nisi. They must come face to face with the consequences at least before the decree nisi is made. I agree with what Senator Lewis has said about the fact that situations can arise whereby these consequences are not faced. People do run away from the consequences. Before they realise the consequences, or are made to realise the consequences by reason of their having to face the facts in the courts or elsewhere, they jump into another engagement or another proposed marriage. The original problem is left unsolved. In many instances they take the problems away with them. In most instances the problem does not go away. As I mentioned on the previous occasion and will mention again shortly, the incidence of divorce on remarriage in this country is now 50 per cent. That is an enormous burden that is placed on individuals and the community. There are social consequences of these actions and they ought to be faced. Insofar as Senator Lewis's amendment proposes to ensure that the persons do face these problems, it deserves the support of the Senate. Insofar as it does that, it certainly receives my support . Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(5.21) —I simply indicate that the Government is unmoved by the rather stern brand of morality which has been expressed by both Senator Lewis and Senator Harradine in their contributions to this debate. Life, regrettably, is not quite as simple as some of the more dramatic pictures that have been painted by the last two speakers would indicate . There are many situations in which the innocent party, to use Senator Harradine's terminology, feels deeply and desperately trapped inside an unhappy marriage. It is that innocent party-who may be a woman who has been much put upon for many years of unhappiness by a brutally inclined spouse-who just wants to escape from the relationship and all its legal consequences as fast as possible. If there is any kind of complexity associated with a couple's financial and property arrangements it is impossible to conceive, with the court resources being as they are at this moment, matters of this kind being able to be resolved in less than the 18 months or two years that they take at the moment. All that will happen as a result of the passage of Senator Lewis's amendment is that an enormous amount of pressure will be able to be imposed on the weaker of the two parties in that situation to accept a settlement that may be less than fair in all the circumstances in order to enable that person to escape from the legal trappings that they feel enslave them. One could put forward many examples that run the other way, but the ultimate reality one comes down to is that the trying by means of procedural clauses of this kind to solve the sorts of problems to which Senator Lewis in particular has addressed his mind is just destined to failure. Under those circumstances, quite apart from other more technical points I could make about drafting difficulties in the way it is expressed at the moment, it is unrealistic to think that this amendment could solve any of the problems that Senator Lewis has addressed. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.23) —I rise simply to correct Senator Evans. I made no mention of innocent parties, nor did I make any mention of stern morality. I made no statement about morality either stern or otherwise. It is symptomatic of Senator Evans's approach to this whole matter that he attempts to impute to persons who have a different opinion from his some reasons for their taking a point of view. I will, of course, be talking about innocence at a later stage in this consideration but in respect of this particular aspect of the legislation I was simply making the point that the parties to the problem, that is to say the people who have made application for a dissolution of marriage, ought to come face to face with the consequences of their actions in social, economic and legal terms. Senator Evans raised the usual hard case but he has not even described a hard case. There was no example in support of his argument. It was all generalised. As most of us know, the majority of cases are where the parties would have no imposing reason for their not sitting down and examining the consequences. If there is a hard case, as described by Senator Evans in his only real argument against Senator Lewis's proposition, it can be taken care of by a discretion of the court. The court has discretion in these matters. That problem could be taken care of and is no reason for rejecting attempts that are being made to have people face the consequences of actions which are burdensome not only to them, but also to the rest of the community. There is no reason that has been advanced by Senator Evans for a rejection of the attempt that has been made by this amendment for that to be faced in the interests not only of the persons concerned, but also of the community in general. Amendment negatived. The CHAIRMAN —We come now to amendment No. (11). I should make clear that I am using the numbers from the consolidated list of amendments. Additional amendments seem to be appearing with the frequency of belated autumn leaves. Senator Lewis, do you wish to move amendment No. (11)? Senator Lewis —No, as far as I was concerned, they were all part of one package. If the first one is not accepted, I accept that the others are not accepted. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(5.25) —I seek leave to move together amendment Nos (12) and (13) which were amendments Nos (4) and (5) on the original sheet circulated by me. Leave granted. Senator GARETH EVANS —I move: (12) page 13, line 8, leave out 'sub-section (3)', insert 'sub-sections (3) and (3A)'. (13) Page 13, paragraph (c), after proposed sub-section 44 (3), insert the following sub-section: '' '(3A) Notwithstanding sub-section (3), where, whether before or after the commencement of section 17 of the Family Law Amendment Act 1983- (a) a decree nisi of dissolution of marriage has become absolute or a decree of nullity of marriage has been made; and (b) the approval under section 87 of a maintenance agreement between the parties to the marriage has been revoked, proceedings of a kind referred to in paragraph (c) or (ca) of the definition of 'matrimonial cause' in sub-section 4 (1) (not being proceedings under section 78 or 79A or proceedings seeking the discharge, suspension, revival or variation of an order previously made in proceedings with respect to the maintenance of a party) may be instituted- (c) within the period of 12 months after- (i) the date on which the decree nisi became absolute or the date of the making of the decree of nullity, as the case may be; or (ii) the date on which the approval of the maintenance agreement was revoked, whichever is the later; or (d) with the leave of the court in which the proceedings are to be instituted, and not otherwise.'.''. These are consequential again on a later proposed amendment to section 87. The usual limitation period on the commencement of financial proceedings under the Act is 12 months after the divorce. The effect of these amendments will be to permit a new 12-month period to run from the date of the revocation of the section 87 agreement where this happens subsequently to the divorce. It is really just to enable more flexibility in dealing with property settlements and circumstances after marriage. I understand that it is uncontroversial. Amendments agreed to. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(5.28) —I move: (14) Page 13, clause 17, at end of clause, add the following word and paragraph : ''; and (d) by inserting in sub-section (4) 'or (3A)' after '(3)'.''. Amendment No. (14) on the consolidated list, which was No. (6) on my original list, is also consequential on the amendments just carried so I would urge that the Committee adopt it accordingly. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 18 and 19-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 20 (Dissolution of marriage). Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.30) — At this stage I intend to move amendment No . (18) in the consolidated list. I point out that I will move amendment No. (19) before I move amendment No. (17) because obviously if No. (19) is carried it may not be necessary to move No. (17). I move: (18) Page 14, clause 20, at end of clause, add the following word and paragraph : ''and (d) by adding at the end thereof the following sub-sections: '(4) Subject to this section, proceedings for dissolution of a marriage shall not be instituted within three years after the date of the marriage except by leave of the Court. '(5) The Court shall grant leave under this section where refusal to grant that leave would impose severe hardship on the applicant. '(6) In determining an application for leave to institute proceedings under this section, the Court shall have regard to the interests of any children of the marriage and to the question of whether there is any reasonable likelihood of a reconciliation between the parties before the expiration of a period of three years after the date of the marriage.'.''. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(5.33) —I can indicate why it is that Senator Harradine's proposal, for which he will advance arguments in a moment, is unacceptable to the Government. What is being proposed is that in relation to marriages of short duration-those less than three years old at the date the proceedings for disolution are instituted-the disolution proceedings not be instituted without the initial leave of the Family Court being sought. The Court is supposed, in determining such a leave application, to have regard to the interests of any children of the marriage and the question of whether there is any reasonable likelihood of a reconciliation between the parties before the expiration of a period of three years after the date of the marriage. So what we are imposing here is an additional stage of formal court proceedings. One has to satisfy a judge before one can go ahead with the divorce if it has been a short marriage, even though one has satisfied the condition of separation for 12 months as evidence of the irretrievable breakdown of that marriage. As such, the general approach underlying Senator Harradine's proposition is quite inconsistent with the existing philosophy of the legislation. Moreover, we believe it is quite impractical to the extent that it imposes a very substantial additional burden on court time and, of course, will add considerably to the costs of the parties. If it is thought that there is something to be said for ensuring that the parties to marriages of short duration give more attention to the possibility of reconciliation than might otherwise be the case, there may be something to be said for expanding the requirement for counselling before the matter proceeds. We have had some debate already, and I think it has been accepted, that such counselling should take place before petitions are filed in relation to marriages of less than two years duration at the time the petition is filed. It may be that there is something to be said by way of compromise for extending to marriages of three years duration that requirement for compulsory counselling before the filing of an application. That is something that Senator Harradine might bear in mind. I say that not in any great spirit of confidence about the likely success of counselling enterprises but because it is a recognised fact that in many marriages of short duration the parties are perhaps inclined to jump too readily into divorce to the detriment of the best interests of their children without really considering the chances of reconciliation. To the extent that Senator Harradine is concerned about that, as well he might be, maybe something ought to be done about it. But to impose, as Senator Harradine proposes, a compulsory requirement for the Court really to make some determination, presumably on the basis of full evidence before it, on all the matters he would wish the Court to have regard to seems to us to add a quite unrealistic new layer to the family law process. To the extent that Senator Harradine's proposal is based on present provisions in the United Kingdom, as I suspect it might be, I wish to draw his attention to some recent developments in that country. At present section 3 of the United Kingdom Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 prevents a petition for divorce being presented within three years of marriage unless the court is satisfied that the case is one of exceptional hardship for the petitioner or that there has been what is described as exceptional depravity by the respondent. It has now been proposed by a Law Commission report entitled 'Time Restrictions on the Presentation of Divorce and Nullity Petitions' that that present provision be replaced with an absolute bar on the presentation of petitions within the first year of marriage; in other words, to bring it back to something like the kind of situation we have here in Australia. Senator Durack —That is the English law reform commission? Senator GARETH EVANS —Yes. The reference, if anyone is interested, is Law Commission Report No. 116, which was tabled in the House of Commons on 20 October 1982. Several important points are made, but I will not endeavour to summarise this in any elaborate detail. It is said at page 5 of the report that the United Kingdom experience of the three-year restriction as it has operated to date was that it simply deferred rather than deterred divorce, that it did not have that deterrent effect that Senator Harradine undoubtedly hopes it would . A further point is made that in Scotland there has never been a three-year restriction yet there is little variation in the divorce rates between England and Scotland, suggesting, says the Commission, there is no casual connection between the lack of restriction and a high incidence of divorce in the early years of marriage. I suggest that that is a significant finding. It is further argued that there is an obvious theoretical inconsistency between the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage on the one hand and the restriction on petitions in the early years of marriage on the other. That point, of course, can be made with a great deal of vigour in the Australian context to the extent that our legislation, with substantial evident majority support, does focus on that criterion of irretrievable breakdown. So I would suggest that although Senator Harradine's amendment is undoubtedly motivated, as indeed are all his contributions to this debate, by a concern to ensure that the bonds of matrimony are not lightly broken, particularly perhaps by younger people, who may well need some additional incentive to make them focus on the implications of their behaviour and the consequences of their breaking a marriage relationship, I simply suggest that the evidence from England, and indeed the practicalities of doing this in Australia, militate against the acceptance of this amendment. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.40) —I apologise to the Committee. I thank the staff of the Senate for putting out this very helpful document although it has confused me no end because the document from which I was working had other notes on it. I regard this as a very important matter because it attempts to ensure that there is time for persons in young marriages to consider the situation and to give the marriage a go. At present the provisions relating to irretrievable breakdown of marriage could mean, though they do not very often mean, that a person could get married in one year and divorced the next. That is not a good situation because the two persons concerned have made a commitment to each other and they should be prepared to work at it. They should be given a three-year period in which to give the marriage a go. I am attempting to amend section 48 of the principal Act to ensure the following: . . . proceedings for dissolution of a marriage shall not be instituted within three years after the date of the marriage except by leave of the Court. (5) The Court shall grant leave under this section where refusal to grant that leave would impose severe hardship on the applicant. Finally, my amendment states: (6) In determining an application for leave to institute proceedings under this section, the Court shall have regard to the interests of any children of the marriage and to the question of whether there is any reasonable likelihood of a reconciliation between the parties before the expiration of a period of three years after the date of the marriage. This goes to the heart of the matter. Senator Missen —Mr Chairman, I take a point of order. As Senator Harradine has said, his amendment goes to the heart of the matter, but it goes to the heart of a matter which is not covered by this Bill. The explanatory memorandum outlines the purpose of the Bill. It states: The main purpose of the Bill is to amend the Family Law Act 1975 to implement the majority of the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act that are capable of legislative implementation. In addition the Bill implements other recommendations for desirable amendments to the Act which have been made by the Family Law Council, the Law Council of Australia and the judiciary. The point I am taking, Mr Chairman, applies not only to this amendment but also to other amendments that deal with the grounds for divorce and the length of separation. These matters, of course, were considered by the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act but it said that there was not sufficient evidence to justify any recommendation for alteration of the grounds of divorce or the period of irretrievable breakdown. The first of these amendments states that proceedings for dissolution of a marriage shall not be instituted within three years except by leave of the Court. Senator Harradine in his next amendment seeks to change the grounds for divorce. These amendments would set a new course in regard to the rights of parties to divorce. They would not be able to institute proceedings in less than three years from the date of marriage unless they had the leave of the Court. I submit to you, Mr Chairman, that this goes well beyond amendments designed to improve the working of the Family Court and the working of the Act. If we are to embark again upon the massive effort of 1974 when the ground of irretrievable breakdown after one year was fixed-that, of course, was argued at tremendous length before the Joint Committee and was rejected by it-and have a rehash of the 1974 battle and also the Joint Committee's battle I submit that it should not be done under this Bill. If Senator Harradine wishes to change the grounds for divorce he should then introduce a private member's Bill. He should not use this Bill, which attempts to clear up problems which have arisen in the course of the administration and the running of the Court and the Act, to try to change entirely the grounds for divorce. I submit that these amendments are out of order. Senator Walters —Mr Chairman-- The CHAIRMAN —I do not need any further debate on this point of order, Senator Walters. I can rule on it already. It has long been the practice of the Senate to use the long title of the Bill in ruling on relevancy. The long title of this Bill is: 'A Bill for an Act to amend the Family Law Act 1975'. Amendments that fall within the terms of that long title are in order in this Committee. Senator HARRADINE —Thank you, Mr Chairman. I believe there has been a good deal of confusion about this matter. That is why I believe some problems emerged in another area. It has been difficult for me and for other honourable senators who have had a viewpoint on this particular matter to gain the support and assistance of others with like viewpoints because they feel constrained about the ability to have a breadth of amendments in this legislation. Now that you have ruled on this matter, Mr Chairman, and another decision has been taken elsewhere I feel quite free to proceed and I will do so. The CHAIRMAN —You will still have to obey the laws of relevancy. Senator HARRADINE —Yes, Mr Chairman. I feel that my amendment goes to the heart of the matter, as I said. The heart of the problem really is that the legislation establishes separation for 12 months as irretrievable breakdown and thus means that the Court simply has an administrative function to deal with the application for the dissolution of marriage on that ground. Frankly, a lot has been said about the law and about creating standards. People in young marriages would in fact know the law, particularly those who have been through the courts themselves and have had a dissolution of their previous marriages on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown, that is, separation for 12 months. It is a fact of life that 50 per cent of young marriages end in divorce. I believe that is a reflection on the whole of the community. It is a reflection on us as legislators that a situation exists whereby somebody can get out of one marriage on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown-that is, after a separation of 12 months-and marry someone else, and after a separation of a further 12 months a decree nisi may be declared on that second marriage. That is not an acceptable situation. Senator Gareth Evans —A touch of the lash is needed. Senator HARRADINE —I do not think that is funny. It is not an acceptable situation. It creates a great deal of problems for the individuals concerned and for the community at large. As far as I am concerned a large number of people within the community feel aggrieved that this situation can in fact occur. Senator Gareth Evans referred to the British situation. Is he saying that we should amend the Australian Family Law Act to incorporate the British bases for a dissolution of marriage? No, he is not saying that. Senator Gareth Evans —I am saying that we should stick with what we have, which is the way the Bill is going. Senator HARRADINE —Senator Gareth Evans is attempting to say that in England some recommendations have been made by a group of lawyers to have their legislation amended in respect of this matter, but of course the basis for irretrievable breakdown in the United Kingdom legislation is quite distinct from what it is here. I regard this as a very vital and important matter indeed. I feel that when a couple enters into the most important contract at a human level between two human beings some protection should be given by the law to those persons. That protection is not afforded by either the definition of ' irretrievable breakdown' in the Family Law Act or the ability of those persons to front up after a year's separation, irrespective of how long they have been married, and to obtain a divorce. Is that a situation with which this Committee agrees? If it is not, let us do something about it. By reason of the fact that amendments were proposed in respect of required reconciliation counselling for young marriages, the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) admits that something needs to be done in this area. I am concerned because I have seen a situation occur in which a man who has been divorced marries a woman and after a period of eight or nine months takes action to ensure that he will have the basis for a further divorce. That sort of utilisation of women in society is not acceptable. Where are the people who stand up for women's rights when this situation is still occurring? It is a typical situation with which women are faced in the community. Where are the people who are prepared to stand up for those women? Where are they in this chamber? We talk about sex discrimination. We talk about protection of women's rights. But unless we are prepared to do something to ensure the protection of these women, particularly in the instance of new marriages, including mariages when one of the partners is a divorcee who knows what the score is and what the Family Law Act is all about, and unless we are prepared to do something about amending the legislation in the manner that I am suggesting, we cannot stand here in future and say that we stand for the protection of women's rights. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(5.55) —I hate to enter into this debate, but I must say one or two things because, as I have said, unfortunately the debate has been allowed to go on and we are now rehashing a matter which was the subject of enormous public controversy in 1974-75 when a Senate committee-- Senator Walters —There are different senators now. Senator MISSEN —That is true. The senators of that day were very experienced by the time they had debated this matter. It is now three years since the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act brought down its report, and once again we had a great debate. We now have new senators who probably have less experience in this area. That is unfortunate, nonetheless we are faced with this problem. We see in the proposed amendment sheer audacity in trying to undo the results of the work, the evidence, the hundreds of submissions and so forth that were brought forward and considered by two committees, a Senate committee and, in 1980, a joint committee. I wish to raise two of the many arguments that might be raised, which have not been said already by Senator Gareth Evans. I think he made some mention of the fact that after a period of separation, the longer the separation the less likelihood of reconciliation. One need look only at paragraphs 3.43 to 3.45 at page 40 of the report of the Joint Committee and see the tables given there to know that after living apart for six months or so the number of parties likely to be reconciled is very small. Even the figures supplied under the heading ' Relationship Improved' show no more than a 22 per cent success rate. After a year there is even less chance of reconciliation and, after two or three years, very little chance indeed. One or two people may well be reconciled in that period, but meanwhile people will be condemned to the frustration of the situation which existed years ago when the previous Act was in operation. I hope we got rid of that in 1974 and that we are not for one moment contemplating bringing back the long delaying period. One should bear in mind that even then there were grounds for divorce, such as adultery, which were pretty objectionable, but nontheless were immediate. It is now suggested that one should wait for three years unless a double hearing before the court is held. That would allow the case to be heard earlier. That is under amendment No. (18); (19) is different. I say that reconciliation will not happen as a result of that. It was not in the realm of experience of the conciliators and others who came before and gave specialist evidence to two inquiries of this Parliament. No one has come forward now with evidence to suggest differently. The other matter to which I refer relates to paragraph 3.46 of the report, where the Committee stated: An extension of the separation period would also exacerbate the jurisdictional problems resulting from the decision in the Russell case that the Family Court jurisdiction in property disputes does not arise until application for dissolution has been filed. The problems that this has given rise to are discussed in chapter 2 and elsewhere in the Report. I know that by way of amendments we are trying to stretch the jurisdiction and are hoping that the decision in the Russell case may well be changed if there is a further challenge to this new law, but if it is not the problems of solving the matter of property between the parties will remain unresolved for long periods, and much longer if a three-year wait is required for the parties. There is a mass of evidence supporting those who do not want to see such a change and the Committee which did not recommend a change in the grounds for divorce. I know that some members of the Committee would have liked to have changed the grounds for divorce, but the evidence was not there to justify it. To make such changes would cause an enormous upset of all that has been done in the last 10 years to try to reduce bitterness and to stop people living in states of unhappiness for long periods. The passage of either of these amendments would be a monstrous disaster. Progress reported. Motion (by Senator Georges)-by leave- agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders are suspended as would prevent such senators as are members of the Joint Statutory Committee of Public Accounts attending a meeting of the Committee during the sitting of the Senate on Wednesday, 7 September 1983. Report Senator McINTOSH(Western Australia) — by leave-I present the official report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Indonesia, and seek leave to move a motion in connection with the report. Leave granted. Senator McINTOSH —I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I wish to place on record the Delegation's thanks to the various people and organisations that provided assistance to the Delegation during the course of its visit to Indonesia. This has been recorded within the text of the report. Before commenting on the report I want to make two comments on the introductory comments therein of the leader of the Delegation. I question the ethics of using the Delegation's report to attack my dissenting report. In my view such remarks should have been in Mr Morrison's tabling statement. His assertion is that two quotations used in my dissent do not in fact appear in the Delegation's report. Both quotations appear in the draft of Mr Morrison's introductory comments, supplied to me with the final draft of the report. In order that honourable senators may see the difference between the tabled document and the draft that I received, I will quote the relevant parts of that draft, given to me as the Chairman's proposed introductory comments. I was given to understand that these introductory remarks would appear unchanged in the tabled report. In fact, the remarks were changed prior to the printing of the report. However, my dissent does not rest on these two quotations alone. The first is: As a fact finding mission the Delegation in the Report records what the Delegation did, the discussions it had and the evaluations and observations made . The Report does not contain any formal recommendations on policy. The Delegation regarded its main purpose as describing to the best of its ability the situation in East Timor. The Delegation's findings are recorded in Chapter 8 which puts into perspective many of the conflicting claims and counter claims associated with the issue. The many discussions the Delegation held are fully recorded. Commentators have the opportunity of making their own evaluations from these extensive records which are incorporated in the Report. The second comment quoted from the introductory report given to me was: For a variety of reasons many Australians have taken issue with Indonesia over East Timor and regard the issue as the sole determinant of relations with Indonesia. There is a moral issue involved in the principles espoused by the Fretilin supporters in Australia. I think that is sufficient to demonstrate what I referred to in my dissenting report. Now it is on record and everyone can judge for himself. It is with great reluctance that I have felt obliged to submit a dissenting report on the Delegation's recent visit to Indonesia and East Timor. At the outset I wish to stress that I am dissenting not merely because I disagree with the general thrust of the report, but because I do not believe that its approach will serve the best interests of the Australian-Indonesian relationship and not least the interests of the Timorese themselves. In assessing my position in this matter, I have taken into account the potential impact of the report not only on Australian Government policy, but perhaps even on the attitudes of other nations towards the East Timor question. In these circumstances, I feel that I should first outline the conditions in which the report was considered. The draft was first made available to the Delegation at 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday 17 August, and we immediately launched into a paragraph by paragraph examination of it. There were many differences of opinion and amendments on which, as it happened, voting turned out to be unnecessary. Consideration of the report continued on the morning of the following day and a vote was taken on the amended version. It seemed that there was strong pressure to meet an early deadline. As it turned out, it was only during the following weekend that delegation members had an opportunity to make a careful examination of the amended report, and it was only then that I was able to comprehend fully its substance and implications. In the circumstances, I was not going to be held to a decision made in haste, a decision with profound implications in relation to our understanding of principles of fundamental importance to international relations in general, and to the basic human rights of the East Timorese people in particular. I do not argue with the proposition that Australians should be urged to understand Indonesia's attitude to the East Timor question, and indeed, circumspectly to consider this question within the sensitive context of the overall Australian-Indonesian relationship. However, there is an even wider context in which this issue should be considered. As a founding member of the United Nations and a co-sponsor of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Australia has a special obligation to heed and advance the principles expressed in those documents. On this basis, Australia has condemned, admittedly somewhat selectively, violations by certain governments of the human rights of others, and has in a number of cases been prepared to resort to such measures as the imposition of sanctions or trade embargoes. It is of obvious importance that we should strive for an understanding and friendly relationship with out neighbour, Indonesia, but the objective reality is that if such a relationship is to contribute to regional stability, our friendship must be based on a foundation of mutual respect, honesty and frankness, and not least on an acceptance that serious policy differences may arise on specific issues from time to time. In some areas of foreign policy this situation already exists. For example, Australia does not recognise the Pol Pot regime in Kampuchea. Indonesia, on the other hand, does. Indonesian policies and attitudes towards the People's Republic of China differ markedly from those of Australia, as well as those of her Association of South East Asian Nations partners and the United States of America. Such differences are normal in intercourse between states and, in a mature relationship, there is no risk of their weakening the bonds that bind together the fundamental common interests, let alone giving rise to the risk of armed conflict. The risk of having to face differences or disputes should not deter us from the pursuit of our common objectives in the field of human rights and regional security. The accommodation of certain differences with Indonesia within the framework of a developing, caring relationship is more than a challenge; it signifies a measure of our integrity, the consistency of our foreign policy and our maturity as a responsible, independent nation state. For Australians then, there is more to the problem of East Timor than the position of the Timorese themselves, although their rights must be the focus of our concern when we are talking about human rights. Several lessons emerging from our experience and performance as a middle power over the past nine years raise fundamentally important questions about Australia's role in the region, about how we perceive our commitment to the principles and rights enshrined in the United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and to several other specific instruments of essential importance to the civilised conduct of relations between states. Not least there is the compelling question of what aims and goals motivate our political relationships with other nations in this region with whom circumstances of geography have, in a sense, imposed on us a shared destiny in a troubled and divided world. It is against these considerations that I believe that, if the price of friendship with Indonesia is to be the abandoning or even qualifying of Australia's long-standing commitment to the principles of self-determination and other human rights, as would be implicit in the accommodation of Indonesia's seizure of East Timor, the foundations on which we are building that important relationship are inappropriate, insecure and plain hazardous. But let us return to the report itself. In my assessment it manifests a clear tendency to diminish the significance of fundamentally important aspects of the Timor problem, and it contains some quite misleading comments and perceptions. For one thing, it clearly distorts the nature of support for the East Timorese in Australia. In one example it refers to 'the principles espoused by the Fretilin supporters in Australia' which obscures the important fact-one that again and again must be drawn to Indonesia's attention-that most of the support coming from the people of this country is not focused specifically on Fretilin but on the East Timorese people themselves. Indeed, the results of an ANOP poll on 2 June this year showed that 41 per cent of Australians support the right of the East Timorese to self-determination, while only 16 per cent support integration with Indonesia. This pattern is corroborated by the flow of mail coming into my office on this subject. But for most Australians who are concerned at what has happened in the former Portuguese colony, the extent and the nature of the armed resistance to Indonesian rule is only one aspect of a situation which involves fundamentally important humanitarian considerations, based, as I have already indicated, on international principles to which this country is a party. I do not dispute the conclusion in the report that Indonesia is spending a considerable amount of money in East Timor on the development of the territory's infrastructure and on material conditions. However, in my view the Delegation was unable to determine the extent to which this development is benefiting the Timorese people themselves. Obviously some of these infrastructural improvements have important security implications-that is to say, they are designed to strengthen the capacity of Indonesia's armed and security forces to deal with opposition to their presence in East Timor. Furthermore, the report avoids what must surely be the central human rights issue, and that is, the attitude of the Timorese people to their present circumstances. it is, of course, true that it would have been impossible to make this assessment during our brief visit to the territory and with the limited facilities available to us. Subsequent reports from sources in Indonesia, in Portugal, and in Australia, even as recently as today, cast serious doubt on the credibility of observations in the report in relation to the security situation and to the conditions under which the people are living. I was initially honoured to be invited to visit Indonesia and East Timor as part of the Delegation. I was subsequently tempted to the conclusion that this invitation was extended within the context of a cynical exercise designed to strengthen the legitimacy of certain views and conclusions held by other members of the Delegation, in some cases, I regret to say, long before the mission went to Indonesia. I am gravely concerned at the fact that this is the report of a parliamentary delegation, not a Government mission. This should have placed on us an especially heavy responsibility in that a report of this kind should be regarded as an expression of the Australian conscience rather than of our political inclinations. In the circumstances I do not regard it as a credible reflection of the views of this Parliament, let alone of the Australian political conscience. Indeed, I believe that it will not enhance this institution's integrity among the parliaments of the democratic world. I finish by reminding honourable senators that Australia was a founding member of the United Nations. In 1948 we helped to draft the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Since then our position has been fairly consistent. No matter what anyone says about the seizure of East Timor, it was an illegal act. I do not intend to transgress in any way from the fact that it was an illegal act and I do not recognise de jure recognition of the incorporation. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(6.16) — I wish to speak to the official report which has been tabled by the Parliamentary Delegation to Indonesia. It is difficult in 15 minutes to cover such an enormous subject. Principally I wish to speak of Timor and the dissenting report that has been put by one member of the Delegation out of five. First it is well to canvass the great importance of Australian-Indonesian relations. Indonesia has a population of about 150 million people and is our nearest neighbour. It is hard to imagine two countries that have greater differences and yet live side by side than Australia and Indonesia. The cultural differences-Javanese culture goes back 2,000 years-the historical development that has taken place so differently in both lands, the great ethnic diversity and the great religious diversities make relations between the two countries very difficult. Australia is a cohesive society socially and has a federal government whereas Indonesia, geographically, comprises over 3,000 islands. It has a wide range of ethnic groups and a wide range of religions. The great advantage of the Sukarno years was that he united that very diverse country, those very diverse races. He made a unified nation out of it. He also sent that nation broke. Since the Suharto regime came along we have seen some worthwhile developments take place. Senator Georges —But it is still under a military dictatorship. Senator MacGIBBON —As Senator Georges says, the complexities of the relationships are such that only a very few people in both countries can understand them; they are so complex and diverse. The purpose of this Delegation was to look at the present situation in Indonesia-not to inquire into history, least of all to inquire into what might have happened in Timor in the past. For those people who challenge the point, as Senator McIntosh does, it must be stated that Australia granted de facto recognition of the incorporation of Timor into Indonesia in 1978 and de jure recognition of Timor and its incorporation into Indonesia in 1979. That is the legal fact of the matter at present. It is not an issue now. It was not an issue for the Delegation to discuss. I accept that all delegations have limitations, but this Delegation had one enormous advantage. It was the first parliamentary delegation into Indonesia and Timor since Timor was incorporated. As the Senate inquiry into human rights in Timor ascertained, the paucity of recent information is striking. That is what has made the Senate's inquiry a joke. There we are dealing with hearsay information which is seven years or eight years old. The great advantage of this Parliamentary Delegation was that we went there. While we might not have seen everything, we are in an infinitely better position to comment on it than any other source. Apart from a few journalists who have gone in during the last 12 months, and Mr Gough Whitlam, there has been no informed visit to Timor from the outside world. The Indonesian Government co-operated with the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the limit of its ability. In fact, it gave us everything we asked for. I will start with the interpreters because they play a crucial role. We have several languages to deal with: English, Bahasa Indonesia, Portuguese and Tetum. The Australian Department of Foreign Affairs provided the Bahasa Indonesia translators for us and for the critical task of translation of Portuguese and Tetum we had the choice of who we had and we made our selection. In fact Senator McIntosh made the selection of the interpreters he wanted. One was a Mr Moura, a Portuguese who had been gaoled for some considerable period by the Indonesians after the troubles in 1975, and the other was a representative from the International Committee of the Red Cross. The Indonesians gave us five days in East Timor, six days if we include the day in west Timor. The period of the Delegation was extended from the usual five days in Indonesia to a total of ten. I have seen incorrect comment in the Australian Press that no members were allowed to visit Timor with us. That is quite incorrect because three representatives-from Radio Australia, Australian Associated Press and the Sydney Morning Herald-were with the delegation. I believe that an open invitation to the Press was given, albeit at a late date. Those journalists accompanied us wherever they wanted to go and they were present at all interviews. I will deal briefly with conditions in Indonesia because it was a delegation to Indonesia. Indonesia is not a wealthy country. It is a developing country. Oil plays the dominant part in its export earnings. It is a country dominated by two factors: Its island geography and its high population density. In fact it has the highest population density in the world. There are one million new jobs to be found each year in Java alone with its population of 80 million. The combination of high population densities, relatively low level of education of the community and the geographic distribution provide major problems for Indonesia's development. We were all very impressed with the calibre of the Ministers. The members of the parliament we met impressed us as being competent and sincere people. I now turn to Timor, which has bedevilled Indonesian-Australian relations in recent years. A great deal of international propaganda has been put about designed to damage Indonesian-Australian relations. Some of that is clearly the product of the left wing-the extreme Left-and some of it is the product of well- meaning but ignorant or uninformed people. I will talk to those people in the second category-those well-meaning people who are not informed and who are encouraging the few members of Fretilin left in Timor to struggle on in the belief that there is a large body of the Australian community that will support them. That is not true and it is a very immoral position for those people to take. Timor is an extraordinarily backward place. It was a Portuguese colony, and the Portuguese would have to be the worst colonists in history. It has some of the most difficult terrain, comparable with the highlands of Papua New Guinea, which imposes enormous transport difficulties. The people have a very high degree of illiteracy and there are public health problems. They are a tribal society and they live on a subsistence economy. What they grow, they eat. If they do not grow crops due to bad seasons or through ill health then they die because there is no alternative source of food. The Delegation formed the general impression that the administration of East Timor was a very concerned one, as the report shows. We saw no signs of excessive force or authority. We saw a lot of development going on. It is not, as some of the apologists for Fretilin have said, a matter of re-painting old Portuguese schools and buildings and things like that. That is not true. It is quite incorrect for Senator McIntosh to claim that we were not able to assess the value of the great Indonesian development that is going on. What Indonesia is doing from a developmental point of view is worth while. We saw 570 new houses in Dili alone, and I do not think the Portuguese built too many new houses each year when they were there. We saw food production increasing. We saw schooling expanding to a great degree. The present Governor, Mario Carrascalao, is the tenth graduate from a university in 400 years of Portuguese rule. Public health measures are coming on. Communications, in the form of roads and telephones, are being developed. Above all, we saw an ordered society. Timor has a very mountainous terrain with a tribal society. If honourable senators have read Sir Bede Callinan's book on the Independent Company of the Australian commando unit that was there through the war, they will get some insight into the social structure that has existed for some thousands of years. They are a very quiet and passive people but when they get stirred up they murder with great ferocity. Until those people are taken out of the hills, put in suburbia, anaesthetised with television and given Holden cars to drive there will always be pockets of resistance and violence irrespective of what the government of the day is. I will now deal with the popular misconception that Fretilin controls large areas of Timor. The Senate Committee has been told-if honourable senators talk to people about this and read articles in the Press this is what they will hear- that the popular mythology in Australia is that Fretilin controls large areas of towns and districts in Timor, that it has 20,000 troops, that it is the true government and that it is supported by the great mass of the people. From what we saw none of those allegations are true or supportable in any way at all. Fretilin very clearly controls no areas of Timor. It controls no towns and no villages. It certainly does not have 20,000 troops. The true number would be between 600 to 1,000 in isolated pockets, with very poor communications in the hills. Those troops certainly do not have popular support. Whatever might have been the story in 1974 or 1975, the time has changed and Fretilin is now very much a disorganised minority group. Because of these misconceptions it is worth reflecting upon the origins of Fretilin. It was modelled on the Frelimo organisation, a terrorist organisation in Angola and Mozambique. It is a left wing organisation. It included everyone from moderate socialists through to extreme Marxists. It is comparable, as a body in its operations in Timor although it is not as bad as, the Khmer Rouge and the Pol Pot regime. The story is just not true that Fretilin is the blue-eyed nationalist movement, never having done any harm to anyone. It was a lawless, undisciplined bunch in many of its units and operations. But there is no problem of security at present in Indonesia. I will instance two examples of that. We flew everywhere by Indonesian Army helicopters at 500 feet above the terrain on direct tracks. We took no evasive action. We travelled in road convoys without escorts and we travelled by day and by night. If there was a threat from Fretilin guerrillas the Indonesians would not have taken that risk. More importantly, because the Indonesians were unconcerned about the risk factor clearly they had had peace for some months. I now turn to the question of the minority report from Senator McIntosh. Four of the five members of the Delegation support this report. As honourable senators will learn from reading Mr Morrison's letter of transmission, Senator McIntosh agreed with this report. We had total agreement from him. Without putting too fine a point on it, if honourable senators read Mr Morrison's letter they will find an inference that maybe Senator McIntosh did not write parts of that letter of dissent. I am disappointed in the views of Senator McIntosh because I think he has failed to act objectively in the interests of the Australian nation. He had a great responsibility upon him. He had a point of view, which he stated quite publicly before he went to Jakarta, of his opposition to Indonesia and to the Indonesian administration of Timor. I believe that he went there with a closed mind to create trouble for Australian- Indonesian relations and that he used the Delegation's visit as a vehicle for that. In conclusion I pay tribute to the support we had from the Australian Embassy and other staff members. I thank my colleagues, Mr Dobie, who assisted me as the Liberal Party representative on the Delegation, Mr Cross and Mr Morrison. I was very proud to be part of a delegation led by Mr Morrison. At all times he acted with the highest level of professional skill, as one would expect from a former officer of the Department of Foreign Affairs, and he did Australia very proud in the way he led that delegation. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator GEORGES(Queensland) —I seek leave to recommit a motion that I put before the Senate earlier this day. Leave granted. Senator GEORGES —by leave-I move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent such senators as are members of the Joint Statutory Committee of Public Accounts attending a meeting of the Committee during the sitting of the Senate on Wednesday, 7 September 1983. Debate interrupted. The PRESIDENT —Order! It being after 6.30 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Question resolved in the negative. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(6.32) —I thank Senator Georges for seeking leave to recommit this motion. The Opposition asked Senator Georges to recommit this motion because there was some misunderstanding between Senator Georges and Government senators and the Opposition about this matter. The Opposition is opposed to the suspension of Standing Orders sought by Senator Georges on the basis that it is opposed in general to the proposition that Senate committees, joint committees, statutory committees, or whatever form of parliamentary committee, should meet during Senate sitting hours. The reasons for that are long established and relate to the efficient functioning of this chamber and to the fact that, if committees generally sit during Senate sitting hours, that will take from senators the ability to participate in what happens in this place. The fact that many honourable senators are often not present in the chamber does not take from the fact that it is accessible to them and they can listen to what is occurring in here and in every sense be participants. It is not surprising that there should be a request for this sort of sitting. The Government has given us sitting hours which make it very difficult to find times available for both members of the Senate and the House of Representatives to sit. There are few meal times and no common free evenings for the two chambers. As we indicated at the time the Government laid down these sitting hours, we believe that they are not very efficient. We believe that they will be a great burden to the Government-they are certainly a burden to the Opposition- and that they will interfere with the effective functioning of both party and parliamentary committees. For that reason the Opposition is not at all happy about the prospect of breaching the usual rule and having this important Joint Committee sit during parliamentary sitting times. It is up to the Committee to find times which are non-sitting times in which to perform its function. The Committee has a raft of witnesses coming to Canberra. It has known about the sitting hours and about this arrangement for a long time and it is up to the Committee to make arrangements to fit in with the Parliament and not vice versa. In view of the hour and the fact that the Senate has negatived the adjournment and given us the opportunity to debate this matter, I will not be lengthy. I say to the Government that this is but one example of the very great difficulties in which it has landed the Parliament through its pattern of sitting hours for the Senate and the House of Representatives. We do not believe it is an appropriate solution to that problem for the very appropriate and proper rules which normally preclude committees sitting during parliamentary hours to be breached. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-I wish to make a very brief statement on this matter. I am delighted to hear that there is a new principle enshrined in the philosophy of the Opposition that it always opposes on principle committees sitting during parliamentary hours. Senator Chaney —That is not what I said. Senator BUTTON —With respect, that is what Senator Chaney said. He said that he had always held that view, but he certainly has not. On a number of occasions committees have sat, with the permission of the Senate, during parliamentary hours. This was a request made to the Opposition in respect of one day for one particular committee. Senator Chaney —It was initially made for every week. Senator BUTTON —That is not the motion with which we are dealing. Senator Chaney wanted this motion recommitted. He might deal with the motion that is before the chamber. Of course, the complaint from Senator Chaney relates to a quite different matter, that is, the sitting hours of the Senate. It is the most specious argument I have heard him put here to say that, because the Opposition does not like the sitting hours of the Senate-that is a matter I understand-the Joint Committee of Public Accounts should not be allowed to sit on one occasion. I very much regret that this matter has occurred in this way. It has occurred as a result of a misunderstanding, and I think that the misunderstanding is largely on the Opposition side. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(6.36) — The view of the Australian Democrats on committees meeting when the Senate is convened is relatively well known. We do not like committees to meet while the Senate is in session. There are good reasons for that and they have been rehearsed on many occasions. However, on many occasions committees have been given leave by the Senate to sit. The normal procedure is that, when a committee believes that it has an urgent matter before it, it can, after consultation generally with all members of that committee, who are from all parties, put that proposition to the Senate. The difficulty that arises is that, if the Senate is to pick and choose which committees it will allow to sit, we will have to have a much more extensive debate about whether what a committee is seeking to do is of importance. That is perhaps what we should have done long ago, but that has never been the pattern here. In fact last week I sat on a committee-the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform- which sought such leave of the Senate. Committees are meeting tomorrow. On a number of occasions committees have met while the Senate is sitting. Generally, the Senate has judged that if a committee believes that what it is doing is serious enough for it to come to the Senate and seek leave, the Senate should give that leave. I do not believe that committees would ask leave of the Senate without due cause, and on this occasion I believe the Committee feels that it has due cause. If we are really to say no to that committee, I believe that the proper procedure would be to have a debate on what the Committee is inquiring into and then make a judgment on whether it is serious. I do not believe that that has taken place, and therefore I think we should follow the normal pattern. That is, as the Chairman has put the matter to the Senate and sought leave from the Senate for the Committee to sit because in its deliberations it has considered that it is dealing with a serious matter and needs that additional time, the Committee should be granted that leave. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(6.39) — The situation that will arise tomorrow is an example of why committees should not sit when the Senate is sitting. Tomorrow , presumably at the same time as the Joint Committee of Public Accounts is seeking leave to sit, we will be debating in this chamber the Family Law Amendment Bill. Amendments to that Bill are quite substantive and go to the heart of a very important question for the whole of the nation about which there is to be a conscience vote-not a party vote; a conscience vote. If that matter is to be considered properly by this chamber, I believe it is incumbent upon all members of the chamber to be present or at least to have access to the debate and to know what is going on at any given time. All of us have done committee work. We know that it is not possible to concentrate on committee work and what is going on elsewhere. For that reason I am opposed to committees sitting while Parliament is also sitting. This motion is one example. Senator GEORGES(Queensland)(6.41) —in reply-I did not intend to speak on the motion. I thought this matter should be put before the Senate as quickly as possible. A question relating to the importance of tomorrow's meeting was raised . The reference currently before the Public Accounts Committee is to HMAS Tobruk . Those familiar with the reference know that the Committee is investigating certain design faults and faulty supervision of the construction of the vessel which may had led to the death of Cadet Dax. The Senate must realise that his family has been in a position of doubt and tension for a considerable time. We gave an undertaking that we would bring down a report on this reference during this sitting of Parliament. For that reason we consider it important that the evidence should be heard tomorrow and the reference completed as soon as possible. Question put. That the motion (Senator Georges's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. The President-Senator the Hon.Douglas McClelland Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 27 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 6 —— Bolkus, N. Haines, J. Button, J. N. Jones, G. N. Childs, B. K. McClelland, DouglasChipp, D. L. McIntosh, G. D. Coates, J. Macklin, M. J. Coleman, R. N. Maguire, G. R. Colston, M. A. Mason, C. V. J. Cook, P. F. S. Primmer, C. G. Crowley, R. A. Ray, RobertElstob, R. C. Reynolds, M. Evans, Gareth Richardson, G. F. Evans, Jack Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Foreman, D. J. Ryan, S. M. Georges, G. Sibraa, K. W. Gietzelt, A. T. Tate, M. C. Giles, P. J. Walsh, P. A. Grimes, D. J. Archer, B. R. Lewis, A. W. R. Baume, Peter MacGibbon, D. J. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Martin, K. J. Boswell, R. L. D. Messner, A. J. Carrick, Sir John Missen, A. J. Chaney, F. M. Rae, PeterCollard, S. J. Reid, M. E. Crichton-Brown, N. A. Scott, D. B. Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Townley, M. Harradine, B. Walters, M. S. Hill, R. Watson, J. O. W. Kilgariff, B. F. (Teller) Withers, R. G. Lajovic, M. E. Zakharov, A. O. Jessop, D. S. Hearn, J. M. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Question so resolved in the affirmative. East Timor-Resource Rental Tax Motion (by Senator Button) proposed: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(6.48) —By some strange coincidence I want to speak on the adjournment debate tonight on a topic that was dealt with by the Senate not so long ago; that is, East Timor. I want to speak about two aspects of that debate. The first relates to my annoyance at the arrangement whereby only Australian Labor Party speakers and Liberal Party speakers were able to debate the official report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Indonesia which is before me but on which, I know, under Standing Orders, I may not comment because debate on the report has been adjourned. We do not know when it will come before the Senate for debate again yet page after page of it calls for comment and criticism. I am annoyed that room was not made in that debate for a speaker from the Australian Democrats. I give notice that we will raise the matter again through the Whips. The situation is not tolerable. A party which is in a decisive position in voting in this Senate should have the opportunity to speak when a matter of such importance and timeliness as this is brought up for the first time. We know perfectly well that when matters of a general business nature are adjourned there is no knowing when they will come up for debate again. I will be extremely surprised, but very gratified, Mr President, if I hear that it is to be brought up again over the next few days. The Democrats were not asked to join the delegation that went to East Timor although we are the only political party in Australia, I think, which is completely united in its opposition to the events in East Timor. I believe there should be an act of self-determination. The other aspect I want to comment on is recent events in East Timor. I think they have a great bearing on the attitudes that this Parliament and the people of this country ought to have towards the United Nations vote and the Republic of Indonesia. It is a matter of great regret that the prognostications which were made publicly early in August by me, amongst other people, that there would be another offensive by the Indonesian army into East Timor have come to pass. The information we have now is that instead of that situation being defused by the Indonesian authorities and an attempt being made at conciliation, there is renewed initiation of a massive heating up of the conflict. We do not know how much it has been heated up. Why do we not know? It is because of the censorship applying there. It is not possible for the rest of the world to know what is going on in East Timor. What methods are being used? How is this attack being made? Is it just being made against Fretilin? Is it being made against the East Timorese people as a whole? Are large numbers of people being taken away to islands and detained on the mere suspicion that they might be Fretilin sympathisers, whatever that might be, and held there without any kind of trial? It is very worrying, or should be to all of us here, in the light of that offensive, to realise also that over the last 24 hours or so there have been fresh reports of torture and intimidation of the people of East Timor and that this has been confirmed to some extent by Amnesty International. Some time ago I met two representatives of Fretilin in Australia. They showed me photographs which turned my stomach. They were alleged to be photographs of torture carried out on East Timorese people by the Indonesian Army. The photographs could have been faked, but I looked at them pretty carefully and listened pretty well to those people and their reaction to the photographs. I can only say that for the photographs to have been other than genuine they must have been the best dissimulators in the world and the best forgers of photographs that I can imagine. But it all comes back to this: We do not know. Our larger neighbour time and time again comes to us and says: 'You must just assume that we are doing the right thing here. You are not to know what we are doing. You are not to come in and see with any fairness what we plan to do'. If tomorrow I received an invitation from the Republic of Indonesia to go to East Timor and went, perhaps with a group of my colleagues from the Senate, there would be no way in the world that I would be able to find out with any honesty what was going on there. Why not? In a place with such a history of torture and intimidation, how could I or any other person find out? I do not speak Timorese. I do not know the place. I do not have contacts there that I can talk to personally. Even if I did those people, knowing that there would be a risk of being at best imprisoned, at worst tortured or killed, the moment I left the country if they told me anything other than what the Indonesian Government wanted me to hear, would not tell me anything. Surely it would be an act of extreme naiverty on my part to assume, behind such an invitation, any proper purpose that could allow any final evaluation or statements about the situation in East Timor to come from me or colleagues visiting the place in the next month or year. Of course there is no way that that can be done. I am here attacking a very wrong state of affairs, one of censorship, of subjugation of a whole people. I am not prepared, as are some people in this chamber, through you, Mr President, merely to have the insolence to dispose of a whole potential nation, one that would be quite capable of carrying out, and anxious to carry out, an independent and self-responsible role-a nation to which , what is more, we owe a debt of honour. But no, we wash our hands of it. We take our pieces of silver, represented by the convenience of perhaps not having a difficult relationship with our large neighbour. We make ourselves subservient to the wishes of that large neighbour, who lays down the law as to what will happen in our neighbourhood. Let me make quite plain that at no stage have I ever said that I think East Timor should be handed over to Fretilin, or that Fretilin necessarily commands the support of the people of East Timor. All that I have said, and all that I think most people who are interested in this situation have said, is that the people themselves should have the right to decide through an act of self-determination. Take that from them, take that from any people, and you take everything from them. It would be like saying to the people of this nation, 'You no longer have the right to elect members of parliament'-that Indonesia, Russia, China or America would be moving in and the new law would be that we would no longer determine our own future. We would do as we were told, otherwise we would suffer certain penalties. Indonesia has no ethnic, historic or cultural rights to East Timor. It never has had and it never will have, as far as I can see. I should like to deal very briefly with this question of the United Nations vote shortly to come, because I think it is of major importance. Some people have argued, and I think it is a dangerous analogy, that it is pro-communist for us to support this right of self-determination in East Timor. They argue that if Australia or anybody else for that matter were to vote in favour of East Timor that would be voting in line with communist ideology. But when one looks at the pattern of the voting on East Timor, one sees that most of the Eastern bloc countries either absent themselves or abstain. That point is worth getting into the record. It is true of countries such as Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland and Romania. It is true that in 1982 Russia and China voted in favour of East Timor. But let us have a look at the other side of the argument. If we are to accept the argument of guilt by association, who then become our partners in crime? Argentina, El Salvador, Guatemala and Chile all voted in favour of Indonesia. One is led to ask what these countries have in common. They all, of course, have appalling records in the field of human rights and a number are autocracies which would certainly tend to agree with the idea that it is perfectly all right to take over a small neighbour and subjugate it as far as one wishes. There are in this chamber those who say that those of us who press for self- determination for East Timor are carrying out a wrong action because we are giving the people there who are resisting Indonesian occupation false hope, hope of more support than they perhaps would get. I made it quite plain, I might say, when I discussed this matter with the Fretilin people I met in Melbourne that that was not the case, that indeed there was no way in which I would support or encourage any kind of aid from outside or any sort of mischief or meddling, especially the supply of arms or anything else of that sort to Fretilin. I asked the Fretilin people: 'Can you tell me where your arms have come from? Have you ever been supplied with arms from outside your country?' They said 'No'. I said: 'I have no way of establishing the truth of that but at least you and I are on common ground. There is no way you should do that. Your struggle is your own but beyond that your right to carry it out is your own'. When people in the rest of the world say that that must be taken from them I think we get a distortion of principle which we might very well search our souls to examine. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(6.58) —I wish to use the adjournment to suggest to the Government that it might indulge in a little open government and in a useful way involve the broader public in some of the policy considerations that it is at present discussing with the States. The Government has made a number of promises, some would say threats, to introduce a resource rental tax in Australia. In this chamber the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh, has gone to some trouble to explain the theoretical basis of that tax and why in the Government's view it is a method of taxing mining profits that is superior to the miscellany of charges which the industry bears at present. Those arguments do have some theoretical appeal. One can very easily , I think, make out a case that taxes on profits are more likely to encourage investments than taxes on gross which will be paid whether the particular project is making a profit or very much profit. We have a situation in which the Government is, in very broad terms, describing a quite new taxing regime that it would like to introduce. That general proposition is one which, in the view of the Opposition, is giving rise to a considerable uncertainty in the industries which are apparently to be the subject of the new tax, namely the, oil and coal industries. The sort of uncertainties about which I find people are concerned relate to such questions as the level of profit, the threshold at which the tax would begin to be payable ; the rate of tax that might be payable; whether one is to have a multiple threshold; whether the tax might be assessed on a project basis; whether it is to be a replacement tax, as described by Senator Walsh and, if so, what it is replacing and on what basis it is to replace State charges; who is to administer the tax; how is it to be administered, and so on. I must say that from the examination of the public statements made by the Government and from the available material that I have access to one in hard pressed to know in what form any tax might emerge. This is a time of some uncertainty in industry, although the oil industry is going through a period of great optimism over the last few days because of some very good drilling results . I think that the Minister would agree that it is a time of uncertainty and some difficulty for both the coal and oil industries. The declining real world price of oil is one factor. With respect to the coal industry the rather shrunken market is a factor. I would have thought it would have been generally accepted that speculation about the future tax arrangements for those industries must add to the uncertainties which are economically destructive. The Government, very sensibly, is engaging the State governments which are, of course, very closely involved with this because many of the taxes are State taxes. I understand from media reports and from some discussions which I have had that the Government has gone to the mining Ministers of the States. It has held discussions with them on this subject. The Government has undertaken to come back to the mining Ministers and produce a further paper and further information and advice to ensure that there can be further productive discussion between the Commonwealth and the States. I commend that course of action which is being followed by the Government. It is enimently sensible and fits in with the statements which have been made by the Minister who is presently in the Senate and by other Government spokesmen that the tax would not be introduced without the co-operation of the States. Again, it is not quite clear how far that statement goes, but it has been made. The suggestion which I wish to make to the Minister in the chamber this evening is that there could be value for the Government, the community and the industry if the sort of consultation which the Government is undertaking could be widened. It appears to me that if the sort of information which is being made available to the States could be made available publicly so that the industry itself could examine some of the possibilities which are being considered, so that academics may have a chance to consider, comment and advise, and so that the Opposition may have a chance to consider, advise and join in the discussion, it would be of value. I think that the Minister would agree that it is possible not only for oppositions to make mistakes, but also for governments to make them. In the recent Budget rejigging which occurred with respect to the change in excise duties there was a simple example of how calculations put before a government by its public servants proved to require revision. Those sorts of errors can be made in any government. The fact is that the issues are complicated and at times the relevant questions simply will not be asked. Hence the right answers will not be arrived at. I think that the potential of the resource rent tax to disrupt severely these major resource industries is such that it is in the interests of Australia that any propositions be given the most careful and, indeed, public consideration so that the widest possible contribution can be made to the process. I have found in the community, the industry, and academic world a very considerable interest in the broad approaches which have been outlined by the Government. I have found almost universally a stated inability to come to grips with the substance of the Government's proposals because not enough detail is known. Therefore, I make a very earnest suggestion to the Government that it widen its dissemination of information. Some of the indicative figuring, for example, which must have been undertaken to try to work out how the sort of balance that Senator Walsh described in very general terms can be achieved between what is being raised now and what is sought to be raised, could be made generally available. I think all of this could usefully be exposed not only to the Opposition, but also to the public and those other people who could make a contribution. Rather than my setting out a great series of questions on the Notice Paper, which would be simply a great waste of time and effort for many of the bureaucrats that would be put to work answering them, I wish to make a general suggestion to the Government that it make available information which I know it is making available to State goverments and which will be part of its own material in trying to arrive at decisions on what I regard as a very difficult administrative, economic and political problem. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(7.05) —In speaking briefly in reply I should set one matter unequivocally on the record. The Government is committed to the replacement of the existing crude oil levy in the 1984-85 financial year by a resources rent tax. Such a tax would remove the distinction between new and old oil as I, both in government and opposition, have stated. My predecessor in opposition, Paul Keating, did also. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has also stated this publicly on several occasions recently. On reflection I am not sure that he did explicitly state it recently. In addition to removing the distinction between new and old oil, such a tax would be applied on a project cash flow basis. The Government also believes that there is a compelling argument for the extension of the same taxation concept to some other areas. It is very much easier to do in the case of oil because more than 90 per cent of the oil presently produced is in what is constitutionally Commonwealth territory. That does not apply to other minerals and the States have the primary taxing right and therefore the power, should they choose to do so, effectively to pre-empt the introduction of rent based taxes by levying high levels of other taxes and charges so that, in effect, there would be no rent left to tax in any case. The Commonwealth is in a position to proceed with the taxation of oil. In the case of other minerals we hope to persuade other governments to adopt similar policies, at least to some extent. In response to Senator Chaney's proposal, I do not believe, and I do not think any of my colleagues believe, that all the original or rational thought in this Parliament is on the Government side or that all the people who are capable of original or rational thought and analysis are on the Government side. There are a number in the Opposition. I think Senator Chaney might well make a useful contribution to the discussion on this subject. Senator Peter Rae would be another useful contributor. I am not suggesting that that is an exhaustive list. I think there are some who probably are not capable of making a useful or rational contribution, but I will not speculate about who they might be. Therefore, the Government and I would welcome constructive comment and criticism which the Opposition might care to offer. The very broad, very general paper presented to the Australian Minerals and Energy Council meeting on 1 June this year is available to members of the Opposition from my office if they wish to pick up a copy if they do not already have it. As far as I am concerned members of the Opposition are welcome to access to subsequent discussion papers. I should, however, lodge this caveat: At some stage the proposals will become specific enough to influence, for example, the price of shares in particular enterprises. Obviously at that stage-I am sure Senator Chaney would appreciate this-that sort of information has to be very closely held. It would be quite improper to have it available to some people who could either directly or inadvertently make it available to others who could use it for commercial gain in a way that is not proper. In accepting Senator Chaney' s proposal that the consultation be as wide as possible and include the Opposition, I believe that one of the potential advantages to be gained is a stable tax regime. The Government desires it to be stable. Obviously, the chances of its being stable are better if there has been a significant degree of bipartisan involvement and, hopefully, bipartisan support. As Senator Chaney probably knows, an interdepartmental committee was set up some time ago to examine this matter. The work of that committee has been slowed down severely by Budget matters which have occupied the time of most of the tax expertise within the Commonwealth bureaucracy. I have made a number of statements in the Senate in answer to questions. Comments, although of a general type, have been made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and others. I have also made comments to industry representatives. My own thoughts were pretty concisely summarised in a letter in today's Australian Financial Review. As the letter states, they are to be regarded as general guidelines. However, they are more specific than many people obviously were aware. I would like to add one point to the Australian Financial Review summary. I have said to industry representatives that I am sure they would be astounded if a government, in designing a tax regime with threshold rates of return and rates of tax, introduced a replacement tax regime which yielded significantly less revenue from Bass Strait than do the existing levy arrangements. Therefore, that is one of the reasons why I have suggested that a multiple threshold would, in association with a progressive rate of tax within a single tax regime, accommodate that revenue requirement which the Government has from Bass Strait without imposing what might be seen as excessive levels of taxation on other oil fields in Australia, particularly the potential oil fields because, in spite of the promising new discovery to which Senator Chaney has referred, the overwhelming weight of geological opinion is that the prospects, of finding another oil field comparable to Bass Strait both in its absolute size and the ease and low cost with which the oil can be extracted, are somewhat remote. Senator Chaney has been kind enough to provide me with a copy of today's Australian Financial Review. In closing I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the letter to which I referred. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- SIR, In his article on oil taxation (AFR, September 1), Rick Wilkinson makes two assertions on which I should comment. (1) ''A rent tax would not achieve tax neutrality and it would have an adverse effect on investment decisions.'' Company tax, State royalties or any other tax have an adverse effect on investment decisions, relative to no tax at all. A no-tax regime, however, does not exist and never has existed. The choice is between different types of tax. A rent tax has the unique advantage of imposing no tax on marginal production or marginal prospects. Therefore, it goes closer to achieving ''Tax neutrality'' than any alternative. (2) ''The major ground for industry resistance has not been addressed by Senator Walsh in any of his public utterances on the subject.'' I and other members of the Government, both in Government and Opposition, have always said that a rent tax would not be introduced without adequate consultation with the oil industry and other interested parties on matters of detail and administration. However, the broad outlines of our proposal have been stated publicly and privately on many occasions. We have proposed: A rent tax should replace the existing levy system. It should be project-based. It should be cash-flow based; that is, it would not apply until net earnings have exceeded total investment. It would not apply until return on shareholders' funds have exceeded a threshold rate of return. It seems desirable to have multiple thresholds combined with a progressive rate . Some allowance for failed exploration activity should be incorporated. In addition to the no tax on marginal production advantage, a rent tax, compared to a levy system, has these investment benefits: It will not adversely affect early cash flows. It will automatically compensate for the high costs of finding and producing oil from small fields and difficult or remote locations; that is, the type of oil most likely to be found in Australia. Finally, Rick Wilkinson notes that a company could be required to pay a ( project-based) rent tax even if the company as a whole was making losses. That could be so. It could also happen under the existing levy system. PETER WALSH Minister For Resources and Energy. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 7.13 p.m. The following papers were presented: Lands Acquisition Act-Statement by the Minister describing Land acquired by agreement under sub-section 7 (1) of the Act, for specified public purposes. Public Service Arbitration Act-Determinations by the Arbitrator, accompanied by statements regarding possible inconsistency with the law-1983- Nos 260 and 261-Professional Officers Association, Australian Public Service and others. Nos 262 to 264-Professional Officers Association, Australian Public Service and others.* Nos 265 to 268-Professional Officers Association, Australian Public Service and others. No. 269-Professional Officers Association, Australian Public Service and others .* Nos 270 to 278-Professional Officers Association, Australian Public Service and others. No. 279-Professional Officers Association, Australian Public Service and others .* Nos 280 to 286-Professional Officers Association, Australian Public Service and others. No. 287-Professional Officers Association, Australian Public Service and others .* No. 288-Professional Officers Association, Australian Public Service and others . No. 289-Commonwealth Foremen's Association of Australia (Australian Public Service). No. 290-Administrative and Clerical Officers' Association, Commonwealth Public Service and others. No. 291-Australian Broadcasting Commission Staff Association. Nos 292 and 293-Association of Professional Engineers, Australia. No. 294-Association of Draughting, Supervisory and Technical Employees.* No. 295-Royal Australian Nursing Federation.* No. 296-Australian Theatrical and Amusement Employees Association. No. 297-Australian Public Service Association (Fourth Division Officers).* Nos 298 and 299-Professional Para-Medical Officers' Association, Commonwealth Public Service.* No. 300-Federated Liquor and Allied Industries Employees Union of Australia. Nos 301 to 303-Australian Public Service Association (Fourth Division Officers) .* No. 304-Australian Public Service Association (Fourth Division Officers). No. 305-Administrative and Clerical Officers' Association, Australian Government Employment and others. No. 306-Australian Broadcasting Commission Staff Association. No. 307-Australian Theatrical and Amusement Employees Association. No. 308-Professional Musicians' Union of Australia. No. 309-Australian Journalists Association. No. 310-Australian Broadcasting Commission Senior Officers' Association and another. No. 311-Australian Journalists Association. No. 312-Actors' and Announcers Equity Association of Australia. No. 313-Australian Journalists Association. No. 314-Administrative and Clerical Officers' Association, Commonwealth Public Service and others. No. 315-Australian Journalists Association. (* Not accompanied by statement.) Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Determinations made under the following Ordinances- Building Ordinance Dog Control Ordinance Hawkers Ordinance Motor Traffic Ordinance Weights and Measures Ordinance Notices (2) of Variations of the Plan of the Layout of the City of Canberra and its Environs (75th and 79th Series), dated 6 September 1982. The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 6 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 21 April 1983: (1) Has the deputy head of the Social Work Department of the Woden Valley Hospital in the Australian Capital Territory recently resigned. (2) Has a decision been made not to fill the vacancy caused by such resignation . (3) Have several recent vacancies in that Department also been left unfilled. (4) Can the administration of the hospital and of the Department be effectively conducted in view of the non-filling of these vacancies. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) No, however the former deputy head of the Woden Valley Hospital Social Work Department has transferred to another position in a different functional area of the Capital Territory Health Commission. This has left the position vacant for a short period while action has taken place to recruit a suitably qualified person to the position. (2) No. (3) No, either the establishment nor the staffing levels of the Department has changed for some time. (4) Yes, social work services have continued to be provided by the hospital at the same level as in the past. Question No. 67 Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 21 April 1983: Will the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism consider providing an increase in the funding for sport and recreation programs for the disabled in the 1983-84 Budget, as there has been no increase since the 1981-82 Budget. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Government has provided $400,000 in 1983-84 for the Assistance Program for Sport and Recreation for Disabled People. This is double the level of funding provided in 1982-83 and should make it possible to fund an increased number of worthwhile projects to encourage disabled people to participate in sport and recreation. Question No. 69 Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 21 April 1983: Has the recommendation of the Bradley Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Postal Services to amend the Postal Services Act to make to it an offence for persons other than Australia Post to deliver material into household letter boxes designed for official mail been considered by the Minister for Communications; if so, what are the results of this consideration. Senator Button —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: As the issue by the Bradley Committee of Inquiry concerns consumer protection policy, more so than postal policy, the Minister for Communications has sought the views of the Attorney-General on the matter. Question No. 119 Senator Mason asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 4 May 1983: (1) Have 500 people died so far of 1,300 cases in the USA of a previously unknown, so far inexplicable, and incurable disease known as AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome), a disease of the body's immune system, and is it reported that no-one who has been infected has yet recovered from it. (2) Is the Minister for Health aware that cases have recently been reported also in Denmark, France and Germany, and that while most cases occur among homosexual men and intravenous drug users of both sexes, it is now spreading to the partners and children of these people, and also has been transmitted to recipients of blood transfusions. (3) Is it now suspected that, due to a latent and potentially infectious phase of this disease (as long as two years), it is regarded as having a major potential for spreading, and that in the United States a major growth in the number of cases has been predicted. (4) Has the disease been reported in Australia. (5) Has the Minister for Health taken steps to see that this disease is identified, notified and monitored if it occurs in Australia. (6) Has the Minister for Health sought the co-operation of the medical profession in reporting early symptoms, described as severe weight loss, fatigue , fever, swollen glands, and persistent virus infection, leading to amongst other things, lung inflammation, fungal throat infection, severe multiple infections, and purple-red bruise-like spots on the limbs. (7) If no action has been taken on this matter, can it be taken as soon as possible. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) According to recent reports received from the USA over 450 persons have died from AIDS. Although patients may recover from the particular episode of infection, their immune deficiency remains unaltered and they are therefore vulnerable to further infections. (2) Yes. (3) Yes. (4) Yes. One confirmed case reported in Australia to date. (5) and (6) Yes. The Department of Health through the Communicable Diseases Intelligence Bulletin, which has a wide professional distribution, has drawn attention to AIDS in No. 81/15 of 31 July 1981, No. 82/16 of 13 August 1982, No. 82/24 of 3 December 1982. In Bulletin No. 83/8 of 22 April 1983 it specifically requested information related to any occurrences of this group of diseases to be notified. Question No. 133 Senator Peter Rae asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 5 May 1983: Has the General Manager of the Australian National Line, Mr John Morgan, claimed, in relation to ships operated by the Australian National Line and the subject of leverage leasing arrangements, that 'the eventual sale by the owners will fully meet the requirements of Australia's tax laws'; if so, (a) by what means will the 'eventual sale' be undertaken, and (b) does the Minister for Transport share the expectation of Mr Morgan. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Yes. (a) Only two vessels are subject to leverage leasing under Australian tax law. At the expiration of the initial charter period these vessels are to be sold by the owners. (b) Approval to enter into these arrangements was given by the former Government. I am advised that ANL had full discussions with the Australian Taxation authorities before the arrangements were finalised. I certainly expect the Line to meet all Australian laws-taxation or otherwise. Question No. 151 Senator Messner asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 18 May 1983: (1) Will a minimum fee apply to community child care. (2) How many places does the Minister anticipate will be taken up by the elimination of the $10 minimum fee proposed by the former Government. (3) Which departments are involved in the Interdepartmental Committee undertaking a review of the fee relief arrangements for child care, and (a) who is the Chairman, and (b) who are the officers involved in this Interdepartmental Committee. (4) When and where will community consultation, mentioned in the Minister for Social Security's press release of 29 March 1983, occur. (5) Has the Department of Social Security or any other department undertaken studies of users of various child care facilities. (6) What studies have taken place on users of: (a) non-profit based, (b) profit based, and (c) home care child care facilities. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) On 29 March 1983, I announced that the minimum fee proposed by the previous Government would be dropped from the Commonwealth funding guidelines for day care fee relief which were to be introduced on 1 April 1983. (2) The proposal to drop the minimum fee was based on the assumption that 7 per cent of places, or just over 2,000 places, would be utilised by families eligible for maximum Commonwealth fee relief support. (3) (a) and (b) The departments involved in the Interdepartmental Committee requested to review fee relief arrangements for child care were the departments of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Finance, and Social Security (Chair). A number of officers in each department were involved in the normal course of their duties. (4) Community consultation on day care funding arrangements throughout 1983 will, and have, taken a number of forms. Firstly, I and my department have taken particular note of the range of comments, letters and submissions received on the arrangements. Secondly, I have approached a national co-ordinating agency to hold a consultation forum on fee relief for day care. The details of this consultation are yet to be finalised. (5) and (6) Studies have been undertaken by my department and by State and Territory departments on the users of child care services. The most comprehensive of these were censuses, in 1980, 1981 and 1982 of licensed and/or supervised pre-school and child care services which sought data on the characteristics of each service, its staff and the children attending. These censuses, known as the 'National Data Base Collection', were jointly designed and administered by the Commonwealth, State and Territory authorities with responsibilities for the services, together with the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Data is available to all authorities involved. My department has released summary statistics of the findings, has undertaken a number of specific studies using the data to support the development and administration of the Children's Services Program, and proposes further analysis of the date as part of its research program. The Australian Bureau of Statistics collects and publishes statistics from its Child Care Arrangements survey the most recent of which was in 1980 and covered all child care arrangements by the families surveyed. In addition to these, studies have been undertaken of specific services or services in specific locations. Some of these have been under the Children's Services Program, administered by my department. Question No. 160 Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 17 May 1983: (1) What is the name of the solvent prepared by the Royal Australian Air Force for cleaning the interior of fuel tanks of F111 aircraft. (2) What are its chemical constituents. (3) What methods are used to clean inside F111 fuel tanks and are RAAF personnel responsible for physically cleaning them; if so, (a) are RAAF personnel required to completely enter the F111 fuel tanks to apply chemical solvents, (b) what measures are taken to protect personnel from chemical contact and (c) what danger does close contact with such solvent pose to human health. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) There are several solvents which have been used by the RAAF for cleaning the interior of F111 aircraft fuel tanks, known respectively as SR51, SR51A, GD500 and Part No ME767. None of these solvents is prepared by the RAAF. The latter solvent Part ME767, which is a general cleaning solvent and used for cleaning and surface preparation prior to periodic resealing of fuel tanks, is prepared by the Maribyrnong Explosive Factory Victoria. SR51, SR51A and GD500, which were used in conjunction with chemical operations to remove the sealant in the tanks for a complete resealing operation on all F111 aircraft completed earlier this year, are prepared by the Eldorado Chemical Company, USA. (2) (a) The chemical constituents of SR51 are: (i) Thiophenol, 10-20 per cent parts by volume (ii) Pyrrolidone, 5-10 per cent parts by volume (iii) Triethyl phosphate, 1-5 per cent parts by volume (iv) Naphtha, remainder (b) The chemical constituents of SR51A are: (i) Thiophenol, 40 per cent parts by volume (ii) Pyrrolidone, 10 per cent parts by volume (iii) Naphtha, 50 per cent parts by volume (c) The chemical constituents of GD500 are: (i) Ethylene glycol monobutyl ether-5 per cent parts by volume (ii) Monophenol polyethylene glycol-9 per cent parts by volume (iii) Sodium dodecyl benzene sulphonate-7 per cent parts by volume (iv) Distilled water-79 per cent parts by volume. (d) The chemical constituents of Part No ME767 are: (i) Aromatic naphtha-50 per cent parts by volume (ii) Ethyl acetate-20 per cent parts by volume (iii) Methyl ethyl ketone-20 per cent parts by volume (iv) Isopropyl alcohol-10 per cent parts by volume. (3) Use of solvents SR51, SR51A, and GD500 during the complete resealing operation was carried out utilizing a pumping operation and did not require personnel to enter the fuel tanks for this phase of the programme. Part No ME767 is applied by rubbing the tank surface with cheese-cloth moistened with the solvent. RAAF personnel are required to physically carry out this task. (a) In the case of SR51, SR51A and GD500 personnel were not required to enter the fuel tanks, but are required to do so to apply Part No ME767 (b) During all chemical processes, including cleaning, associated with removing tank sealant and subsequent resealing operations, all personnel in the immediate area are required to wear protective clothing including gloves and goggles as a protective measure against chemical contact. In addition, while personnel are inside the fuel tanks, conditioned air is pumped into the tanks to reduce fuel and solvent concentrations. At the same time safety workers are stationed outside each tank. When large cleaning operations are carried out, workers are rotated through cleaning and sealing duties. (c) Information on the toxicities of the cleaning solvents is not available from the manufacturers. However, in such cases the safety procedures adopted by the RAAF involve treating the chemical mixture as being at least as toxic as the most toxic individual chemical in the mixture. Appropriate safety equipment and procedures are then applied to prevent danger to human health. It is considered that the safety measures described at 3b. above fulfil this purpose. Question No. 224 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 1 June 1983: (1) Why is it inappropriate to provide names of people allocated work by the Telephone Interpreter Service in South Australia in view of the fact that these people are in receipt of public moneys (see answers to Question No. 21, Hansard 24 May 1983, page 742). (2) Who decides which persons are placed on the panel of contract interpreters and what are the guidelines used. (3) How many persons have not been included on the panel. (4) Does the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs keep statements of all moneys paid to individuals under this program for audit and annual budgetary services; if not, why not; and if so why could those details not be provided in answer to Question No. 21. (5) How many hours of research is anticipated to take to provide the information requested, in Question No. 21 and in the previous parts of this Question. Senator Grimes —The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) My earlier decision not to provide names of people allocated work by the Telephone Interpreter Service and the amount of their earnings was based mainly on the need to respect their personal privacy. While I appreciate that these persons are in receipt of public moneys, this in itself is not a criterion for publication of their names. A further factor is that it would have incurred considerable cost (in staff time) to analyse cost data on the thousands of interpreting jobs allocated each year in South Australia. This would inevitably have reduced staff time available for the provision of services. (2) My Department decides which persons are placed on the panel of contract interpreters. Applications are invited both through direct contact, and through public advertisement. Preference is given to applicants possessing level II or higher accreditation by the National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters (NAATI). Applicants are also assessed against other appropriate criteria, including qualifications, experience and a capacity to work effectively under pressure. (3) My Department does not keep an aggregate record of unsuccessful applicants. (4) My Department keeps records of all interpreter assignments under the TIS program and the total costs involved. The resources required do not justify the preparation of a detailed breakdown of these payments. In addition, I would not be prepared to authorise the publication of such details without the consent of those to whom the payments were made. (5) It has been estimated that it would take a junior clerk three person months at a cost of $3,250. Question No. 241 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs , upon notice, on 3 June 1983: Will the Federal Government make representations to the Chilean Government expressing Australia's abhorrence to descriptions in the latest Amnesty International report on Chile which details gruesome methods of torture and press for an open inquiry into these torture allegations. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The Government has noted the Amnesty International report to which the honourable senator has referred and is disturbed by its implications. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Bill Hayden, made clear Australia's concern about the unrepresentative character of the Pinochet regime and its disregard for fundamental human rights, notably freedom of association and expression, in a statement on 16 June 1983. In addition officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs have made representations to the Chilean authorities concering specific situations which have arisen including during the days of national protest which have taken place in Chile in recent months. The United Nations General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights continuously monitor human rights developments in Chile. Australia has lent its full support to strongly worded resolutions adopted by those bodies. The Government regards the Commission on Human Rights as an effective force in efforts to convince the Chilean Government to respect the human rights of its citizens and we will continue to support that body in its investigative procedures. Question No. 256 Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 24 August 1983: (1) What lighthouses are scheduled to be unmanned over the next five years. (2) For which of these lights what is: (a) the current range, intensity, flash length and character, and (b) the expected range, intensity, flash length and character after automation. (3) What is the expected cost of automating each light on the list. (4) What has been the capital and operating costs of each of these lights in each of the last ten years. (5) Does any of the expenditure in (4) relate to proposed automation. Senator Gietzelt —The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: The matter of light station manning is the subject of an inquiry being undertaken by the House of Representative Standing Committee on Expenditure. Until the Government has considered the Committee's report no manned lighthouses will be scheduled for conversion to unmanned operation. Question No. 257 Senator Macklin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 23 August 1983: (1) Why did the Defence Department fail to designate HMAS Sydney with 'Special Duty' status as defined in the Repatriation (Special Overseas Service) Act 1963 despite the fact that between 1965 and 1972 the HMAS Sydney entered a 'Special Area' 24 times. (2) Why did the Defence Department insist the HMAS Sydney had to be subjected to continuous danger which is a departure from the definition outlined in the Act. (3) Why was the HMAS Sydney placed on a high state of damage control readiness which became more frequent as it came closer to its destination if the Defence Department believed the ship was not in continuous danger. (4) Why does the Defence Department believe a ship performing logistical and supply duties, as the HMAS Sydney was, to be in less danger than ships performing other tasks. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) HMAS Sydney was not allotted for special duty under the Repatriation ( Special Overseas Service) Act 1962 because her voyages to Vietnam were of a transitory nature only. She did not remain there for operational duty. (2) In July 1965 the Government decided that allotment for special duty should only be made when personnel were exposed to potential risk by reason of the fact there was a continuing danger from activities of hostile forces. To accord with this decision personnel on duty in 'special areas' such as staff visits or other occurrences of a short term nature were not eligible for allotment for special duty. The complements of ships or aircraft engaged on conveying or escorting duties to or from 'special areas' were similarly not eligible for allotment. (3) HMAS Sydney's armament and sensor systems were manned while she transited coastal waters off Vietnam and when at anchor. These measures were taken as precautions against any enemy action that might eventuate. However the limited period so involved did not meet the concept of a continuing danger envisaged in the Government's policy decision at (2) above. (4) Ships performing logistical or supply duties such as Sydney were in Vietnam waters for relatively short periods, one to three days in the case of HMAS Sydney; in performing these duties they were not directly engaged in warlike operations as provided for in the definition of 'Special Duty' in the Act. Senator Grimes —On 4 May 1983 (Hansard, page 157), Senator Coleman asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice concerning the women's emergency services program. The Minister for Health has provided the following information: An amount of $4m will be provided by the Federal Government in 1983-84 for a women's emergency services program. The program will include $200,000 earmarked for ethnic workers to assist migrant residents of refuges. This allocation is in recognition of the particular language and cultural difficulties faced by women from non-English speaking backgrounds in crisis situations. The Government's aim will be to co-ordinate provision of emergency services for women and children escaping from intolerable domestic situations, in co- operation with the States and community groups. Commonwealth support for crisis accommodation, including youth refuges and shelter for the chronically homeless is currently under review. Detailed decisions about administration and funding of the proposed women's emergency services program will be made in the context of that review. Senator Grimes —On 4 May 1983 (Hansard, pages 150-1), Senator Crowley asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Health, a question without notice concerning Medicare provisions for people suffering from medical conditions such as anorexia nervosa or diabetes. The Minister for Health has provided the following information: There is little I can add to the answer already provided by the honourable senator. Chronic medical conditions, including psychiatric illnesses, will be included in the Medicare arrangements, patients being covered for 85 per cent of the Schedule fee, with a maximum patient contribution of $10, for any one service.