Thursday, 8 September 1983 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: Whereas the Government of Australia has signed the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which in Article 23 (1) states that 'The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to the protection by society and the State'. And Whereas the terms of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women would violate the above Article 23 (1). We humbly pray the Government to refrain from ratifying the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women; Believing that its implementation would result in: (1) Undue cost to the Nation at this time. (2) 'The elimination of any stereotyped concept of roles of men and women at all levels', as described in Part 3 Article 10 (c), being a disruption of traditional parental roles, is likely to result in emotional disturbances of childhood. (3) The strong encouragements to mothers to join the workforce, with the provision of networks of creches and child care centres as outlined in Article 11 of the convention is likely to result in maternal deprivation and psychological disturbances among children with an increase in childhood psychiatric illnesses. (4) The sexual role changing as recommended in Part 3 Article 10 (c) is likely to contribute to further marriage insecurity and breakdown. And we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our Nation. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Sir John Carrick (from 23 citizens), Harradine (from 88 citizens), Robert Ray (from 19 citizens), Richardson (from 15 citizens), Scott (from 23 citizens) and Sibraa (from 28 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of Australia Concerned about the high and increasing rate of divorce and family breakdown, Convinced that the Family Law Act has weakened marriage by making divorce a trivial matter, the present Act paying scant regard to its own definition of marriage as a life-long union; and Believing that the legal bond of marriage should be strengthened humbly petition for the Family Law Act and the Marriage Act to be amended in order to 1. Reject any moves towards divorce by post 2. Restore the former prohibition of marriages between close relatives by blood or marriage 3. Protect the rights and welfare of aggrieved partners of a marriage who are threatened with being divorced against their will 4. Ensure that in divorce judgments paramount attention be given to whatever course will best serve the welfare of dependent children of the marriage 5. Encourage counselling towards reconciliation 6. Restore objective tests to irretrievable breakdown of marriage in terms of: i. intolerable behaviour; ii. desertion for two years; iii. separation for three years. And we pray that you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our nation . And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Lajovic (from 22 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. The concerns which people around the World have for the increasing stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction; 2. The global concern that any nuclear exchange will inflict on humanity unimaginable death and suffering; 3. The vulnerability that Australians will face in any nuclear conflict between the major powers; 4. The public concern that Government should explore all avenues to ensure that the nuclear threat is eliminated. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Parliament establish a Senate Select Committee on Nuclear Disarmament and Peace to investigate the creation of a Ministry of Peace and Nuclear Disarmament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Ryan (from 30 citizens) and Scott (from nine citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That the Church of Mary Queen of Peace Klaipeda, Lithuania was the only church permitted (by the Soviet authorities) to be built in post-war Lithuania. That the church was built by the Catholic parishioners from their own resources and with support from overseas Christians. That upon completion of the church building in 1960, the church was not allowed to be consecrated and, in 1961 was resumed by the State for purposes other than religious. That this resumption of the church and the subsequent persecution and arrests of the local clergy and other christians is contrary to the spirit and the letter of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Human Rights. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled request the Australian Government to communicate most strongly to the Government of the USSR the sympathy of the petitioners for the plight of the Lithuanian Christians and ask that the Church of Mary Queen of Peace be restored to the Catholics of Klaipeda for the practice of their religion without interference. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Lajovic (from 216 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 Chipp (from five citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of we the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: Our opinion on paper: That ever since the early seventies, high interest rates of staggering magnitude have made a complete mockery of justice, unparalleled in our time. Resulting in the elimination of employment on a vast scale, in every phase of production causing house ejections, with mind effects and mental disturbances, leading to interrupted education, road toll and social disruption. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your House urge politicians of all parties to nationally unite for the return of Justice by using the powers vested in them to immediately and drastically reduce these destructive interest rates. Further and to this end a conscience vote is essential, if justice is to be served. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Bolkus (from seven citizens). To the Honourable The President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That an airport in the north-western region (commonly called Scheyville) imposes disastrous economic, environmental and social costs on our community. 2. An airport would destroy 2,000 households and impose upheaval, noise and pollution on one million people presently unaffected. 3. The cost of an airport in the north-western region is greater than the alternatives, whilst fog and close proximity to RAAF Base Richmond would make operations impractical. 4. It would destroy the historic village of Pitt Town, environmentally important wetlands, and their unique adherent wildlife. 5. Your petitioners reject these proposals and call for endorsement of the MANS Committee findings. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Peter Baume (from 146 citizens). Petitions received. Annual Report 1982-83 The PRESIDENT —Pursuant to section 6 of the Public Service Act Amendment Act 1982, I present the first annual report of the Department of the Senate for 1982 -83. The report which I have just had the honour to present is the first report on the operations of the Department of the Senate. The Senate has itself been a pioneer in the call for greater public accountability of public bodies, and has determined that each annual report tabled in the Parliament stands automatically referred to the relevant legislative and general purpose committee for consideration. In addition, the Senate Estimates committees routinely examine the annual reports of those bodies whose financial accounts come before them. One particular Senate committee-the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations-has issued a valuable series of detailed reports supporting the call for improved reporting standards and practices by public bodies. That Committee has recommended that parliamentary consideration be given to an annual reports Act, which could be set new standards for reporting and accountability. Also relevant is the report by the Senate Select Committee on Parliament's Appropriations and Staffing. As a direct result of that Committee's recommendations, the Parliament generally has won a greater degree of autonomy and independence from the Executive. Parliamentary appropriations are now included in a separate Parliamentary appropriations Bill. In welcoming these new measures of independence, the Senate has accepted its corresponding obligation to present an open public account of the way in which it exercises control over its own appropriations and staffing. It is, in my view, a proper responsibility of parliamentary departments to publicly account for their operations in the same manner as government departments. I commend the report on the operations of the Department of the Senate for the year ended 30 June 1983. Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory)(10.05) —I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —Papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. National Debt Commission-Annual Report 1982-83-pursuant to section 16 of the National Debt Sinking Fund Act 1966 2. Services Canteen Trust-Annual Report-1982 Royal Australian Navy Relief Fund-Annual Report 1982. Australian Military Force Welfare Trust Fund-Annual Report 1982 Royal Australian Air Force Welfare Trust Fund-Annual Report 1982-pursuant to sections 34 and 35 of the Services Trust Funds Act 1947 3. Public Service Board-Annual Report 1982-83-pursuant to section 22 of the Public Service Act 1922 4. Program Presentation of Appropriations and Outlays-Departmental Estimates 1983-84-together with a Statement made in the House of Representatives by the Minister for Finance on 7 September. Annual Report 1982-83 Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(10.07) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The operations of the Commonwealth Public Service are clearly a critical part of providing good government in Australia and there is considerable speculation abroad about some measures which it is said the Government has in mind with respect to the Service. I am sure that it would be a good thing if one of our General Business sessions were devoted to some consideration of Public Service matters. For that reason I have moved that the Senate take note of the report. At this stage I would simply seek leave to continue my remarks later and indicate that we will give consideration to finding some suitable time on a Thursday when the matter can be taken up by the Senate. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria)(10.08) —I move: That the Senate take note of the papers. I think we all welcome the information that was made available in the presentation of the appropriations and outlays in the post-Budget form of program budgeting that was provided by the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) yesterday. I want to refer to one or two remarks that were made in the statement which accompanied the tabling of that Budget paper. I think that in view of the discussion that arises around Budget time we need information in a program form such as has been presented. That information will be valuable to those who wish to look at the outcome of some of the Budget proposals. The booklet will be of use in many places in evaluating the objectives and outcomes of programs as we compare them with past efforts or alternatives. I would like to refer to an aspect of the proposals mentioned in the Minister's speech which I think is of considerable interest to the Senate. The Minister referred to the special appropriation for the Minister for Finance under Division 312 in Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1983-84. The Minister, in talking about the way in which he would look at the management of resources and the operation of the manpower required for government programs, said: Consequently, we have introduced a new division in the Budget, Division 312, entitled 'Special Funds of Expenditure in Relation to Government Programs at the Direction of the Minister for Finance'. What I think is of interest to the Senate is the inclusion of these funds in Appropriation Bill (No. 1). I would think that the relevant Senate Estimates committee will be interested in pursuing the provisions of these funds in Appropriation Bill (No.1). As is well known to the Senate, there are Bills which relate to ordinary annual services and there is provision for funds that relate to new policies. The Minister for Finance has described it briefly in his statement, but not at all conclusively in the information supporting the Estimates committee's consideration. I think it will be timely when the Estimates committees meet to pursue the inclusion of Division 312 in Appropriation Bill (No. 1) as relating to new policies. I do not think that this is the time or the place to have any detailed discussion on that. With the information provided to the Senate in the Appropriation Bill and the explanatory notes, it is likely that a preliminary view could be formed that the proper place for such a fund, if it should exist at all, is perhaps in Appropriation Bill (No. 2), which the Senate may amend, or in an Appropriation Bill to be introduced at a later time after the purpose of the funds in Division 312 is identified and sanctioned by Parliament. I make that introductory comment with regard to this new provision of funds. I feel sure that the Senate Estimates committees, or the Senate at some other opportunity, is the place to pursue that matter. I want to make a brief reference also to some comments that were made in the speech yesterday by the Minister for Finance and to the Press conference which followed it in which some interest was shown in the fact that the Government had decided to provide financial impact statements at the time Ministers make second reading speeches in relation to legislative proposals. I think it will be recalled by the Senate that this proposal was adopted by me when I was Minister for Finance, following the very persistent efforts of Senator Lewis. He requested that information should be given of the financial implications of legislation introduced. At that time the Government agreed to provide the sort of information that was announced yesterday by the Minister for Finance as being an innovation. It was agreed that the sort of information that would be given was some assessment of the cost at the time the Minister made the second reading speech. It was also undertaken that if facts and information were available with regard to the impact on industry and other sections of the community, that also would be made available at that time. I am pleased to see that the Minister for Finance announced yesterday that he has adopted what was a conscious policy following the very strenuous efforts of Senator Lewis in this regard. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(10.13) —I rise to congratulate the Government and the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) for adopting the proposal I put before the Senate in the last Parliament that at the time of second reading speeches on legislation the Government should put down a financial impact statement. Honourable senators will recall that the former Government, under the guidance of Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle, accepted about 70 per cent of my proposal. It agreed to provide the Parliament and the public with details of the impact so far as it related to government revenues, and it left the balance of my proposal for consideration at some future stage. It seems as though the new Government, having considered that, has taken up the balance of my proposal. The Minister in his speech, when talking about second reading speeches, said: Ministers will also attempt to assess the impact on industry and other sections of the community when formulating legislation. While such effects are often indirect and not easily quantifiable, Ministers will endeavour to include this information wherever possible. I am sincerely grateful that the Government has adopted this proposal, which is almost exactly as I requested. At the time I introduced the proposal I recognised that it was a new concept. I recognised that it always takes some time for people to appreciate the benefits and the merits of new concepts. At the time Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle responded to my proposal I indicated that I hoped that in due course the Government would see its way clear to adopt the balance of the proposal. I recognised then that it would take some time and I am delighted to see that it has now been accepted. I want to say now-I am foreshadowing further pressure which I shall be putting on this Government and on my own Party-that it is not only legislation that has a substantial financial impact on the community at large but also, very clearly, regulations made under that legislation. I hope that in due course all parties will agree that some attempt will have to be made to assess the cost formulated in legislation, to the community and the impact on industry and other sections of the community of regulations, and that in due course the Government-either this Government or some future Liberal-National Party Government-will see its way clear to make that information available to the Parliament and the public at large. I draw attention to the simple example I have given repeatedly about the Metric Conversion Act. I am sure that had some people in the government of the day made some attempt to assess the economic impact on this country of metric conversion the nonsense of the Metric Conversion Act would not have been proceeded with. How much has it cost this country? Surely $2,000m would be a modest estimate of the cost of metric conversion in this country, and for what? We can now measure kilometres instead of miles or the pressure in our tyres by some impossible calculation. Quite nonsensical changes have been inflicted upon this community at enormous cost for some stupid principle, mainly because at no time during the Committee's proceedings was an attempt made to assess the financial impact on the community at large. I am sure that if governments of the future, Ministers and their officers apply their minds to the matters that the Minister has agreed to in this proposal this country will be better served by its future governments . Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania) —I present volume 1 of the report of the Senate Select Committee on Statutory Authority Financing, which is a report on the financing of statutory authorities and in particular, on the economic impact of statutory authorities. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator PETER RAE —by leave-In tabling the report I thank the Department of Foreign Affairs and the former Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Street, with whom the arrangements were made at the time, for releasing Mr Bill Bowen to undertake the major part of the work which comprises the report being tabled by the Committee. I also thank Dr Rae Weston of the Economics Department of the La Trobe University for her assistance throughout the study. I believe that both of these people have made a major contribution to the study of the financing of statutory authorities and many of the implications for Australia of the facts and methods by which that financial operation takes place. Mr Bowen has carried out major work for the Senate and for the Committee over a period of years. His work as a consultant to the Senate Select Committee on Finance and Government Operations, in its very early days, formed a major part of the original thrust of that Committee's work. I believe Mr Bowen's further work, which is evidenced in this report, reflects an expertise of a high magnitude and an incisiveness and novelty which is of great significance to Australia's future. I therefore congratulate and thank Mr Bowen for the work he has done for the Committee. The study was motivated by a feeling that the role and economic impact of Commonwealth statutory authorities, together with the ways in which they are financed, had not received the attention that their importance in the Australian economy required. Previous reports by the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations had raised serious reservations about the accountability of statutory authorities to the Parliament. I need hardly emphasise the importance of proper accountability to Parliament for moneys that are authorised by Parliament, yet some of the problems faced by a parliamentary committee in obtaining vital information give rise to the most serious doubts about what accountability means in practice. It was not possible, for example, to discover how much individual authorities contribute to the overall Budget deficit, for the publication of such information might mean that authorities would refuse to supply further information without which the Budget could not be prepared. This highlights the extent to which this crucial area of government has been allowed to operate without appropriate supervision. This report is an attempt to throw some much needed light on the operations of authorities. I should add that throughout the study the principal objective has been to obtain approximate orders of magnitude for key economic variables which, the Department of the Treasury has readily acknowledged, have not been calculated before. To this end an extensive economic survey of the nine authorities mentioned in the report was conducted. This survey obtained information which hitherto was unknown. It has resulted in some important new aggregations which have been shown on a standardised basis. As a result of this and other research, the study has produced a set of results which enable standard comparisons to be made both between authorities and within a particular authority over a period of time. It is vital to recognise that both of these comparisons are necessary when evaluating the performance of authorities. In many cases there appears to be the most disturbing result that not only is the performance unsatisfactory, but also that things are getting worse. There have recently been a number of inquiries into the operations and finances of specific authorities and while such inquiries are to be welcomed, they have not adopted the broader perspective which this report has taken. These inquiries have in most cases downplayed the significant impact of inflation upon the way in which authorities operate and the way in which their accounts are presented to Parliament. Until the fifth report of the Victorian Public Bodies Review Committee was tabled in 1981, there was not even a theoretical structure within which to analyse the effect of inflation on public authorities. Inflation affects authorities in a number of ways, and the present study has estimated some of these effects on the nine largest Commonwealth business undertakings. They are Australian National Shipping Commission; Australian National Airlines Commission-that is, Trans Australia Airlines; Qantas Airways Ltd; Australian National Railways Commission; Australian Postal Commission- Australia Post; Australian Telecommunications Commission- Telecom; Overseas Telecommunications Commission; the Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Authority and the Pipeline Authority. The importance of these organisations in the Australian economy is often not understood, which in part explains why their operations have not received sufficient attention. The value-I emphasise this, Mr Deputy President-of these nine authorities' net fixed assets is almost 40 per cent of the value of net fixed assets of 685 of the largest companies in Australia covered by the constant group of the Reserve Bank of Australia. It is obvious that the rates of return earned on these assets is of the utmost significance for the Australian economy and for our future prosperity. It is equally obvious that this importance transcends political persuasions, for this startling reality of necessity will confront whichever party is in power at any particular time. This study has been conducted on a basis of rationality and accountability and without political or ideological bias. These organisations provide a large proportion of the infrastructure and services upon which the rest of the economy depends. We will all clearly pay a significant price for mistakes in this area, with a key problem being the liability of the rest of the community for such defects. In the same way that the real rates of return earned on these authorities' assets have been ignored, the question of the maintenance of the community's capital invested in these authorities has also been sadly neglected. In periods of significant inflation, as Australia has experienced in recent years, the calculation of depreciation on an historical cost basis is likely seriously to underestimate the amount which it really costs to replace an asset whose value has declined because of wear and tear. To measure adequately the true economic performance of a public authority over time the only sensible approach is to measure depreciation on a replacement cost basis and to value assets at their current, rather than their historical cost, value. A considerable amount of work has been devoted to this issue, and while there may be arguments about some of the assumptions used, it would be hard to dispute that this method discloses a more realistic picture of the financial position and performance of authorities than the historical cost figures published by most authorities. The implications of some of the results of this historical cost bias are most serious, not the least of which is the fact that Parliament is deprived of the opportunity to assess the performance of these organisations and yet it must still appropriate moneys. If a public sector organisation is not setting aside sufficient funds to replace that part of its capital which has been used to produce a good or service, there is a prima facie case that that organisation is consuming its capital. While generalisations conceal the considerable diversity that exists among the nine authorities, since the 1972-73 financial year it seems that none of them have set aside sufficient funds to meet the real costs of replacing their assets. In the private sector a company which failed to make appropriate allocations for its continuing viability would either go bankrupt, be taken over, or be forced to raise additional finance to cover the real cost of eventually replacing its assets. If a large statutory authtority does the same thing, the taxpayer ends up footing the bill. The recent capital injections to TAA and ANL are examples of what can happen when the capital structure and/or real rates of return on assets are allowed to deteriorate over a long period. Similarly the present debate between OTC and the Department of Finance regarding the amount of profits to be retained for future investment points to the importance of replacement cost depreciation. Statutory authorities have tended to rely more heavily on borrowings than private companies and this has confronted them with some very difficult problems . For the nine authorities included in the report capital liabilities are equal to 76 per cent of net fixed assets, while for the 685 largest private companies the figure is 53 per cent. Inflation is therefore likely to have a more significant impact on these authorities' capital structures than is the case for private companies. An important effect of inflation in Australia over the 1970s was the phenomenon of negative real interest rates, whereby borrowers received a substantial subsidy from lenders. The calculations shown in the report indicate that the purchasing power gain on net nominal liabilities as a result of negative real interest rates has been extensive, although with the return to positive real interest rates this effect will disappear. This will have a traumatic effect on a number of authorities and it is vital that this is fully understood in formulating policies to allow them to cope with these difficulties . All the evidence, however, is that despite the relatively high levels of inflation in Australia in recent years', the distinction between real and nominal rates of return appears to have escaped both those responsible for the conduct of authorities finances, and most of the authorities themselves. A rate of return which may appear reasonable in nominal terms may very well correspond with a low or negative real rate of return, and the disappearance of the subsidy via negative real interest rates will make this worse. If we want simply to throw away all concepts of economic efficiency and pursue the path of subsidising the consumers of these services and let our national capital stock be run down, then the practices of some of our authorities could not be bettered . However, if Australia is to pay more than mere lip service to the objectives of economic rationality, there needs to be a radical change of attitudes by economic managers, the authorities and, in particular, the public who must be persuaded that any consequent higher charges by authorities to achieve reasonable rates of return on the nation's assets are in the longer term to everyone's benefit. When depreciation is calculated on a replacement cost basis asset values are measured at current prices, which virtually all economists, including the Treasury, argue to be the only correct method. When the appropriate adjustments are made for the effect of inflation on debt the results for some authorities are alarming. Some of the key results are: ANR, ANL, Qantas, TAA and Australia Post have had negative real rates of return at some stage, and the trends in those rates are in most cases unfavourable; and OTC, Telecom and the Pipeline Authority have earned high rates of return on equity. Also, in a number of cases there has been a significant rate of increase in the equity holdings of the Australian people. However, this has not always been matched by a corresponding increase in the real rate of return earned on that equity. The diversity in the rates of return raises serious questions about the allocation of the community's resources to these authorities. In addition to the problems caused by having such a high proportion of the nation's resources earning low or negative real economic rates of return, there are obvious equity problems in having such diversity in real rates of return. Consumers of services provided by authorities earning low or negative rates of return receive an indirect subsidy. The interests of economic efficiency dictate that such subsidies be made more explicit. If governments want to run these authorities as quasi welfare systems to redistribute the community's resources to particular groups, the interests of parliamentary accountability require that such subsidies be at least capable of identification and assessment by the Parliament . The dangers of perpetuating the present system of cross subsidies and implicit subsidies to particular consumers as a result of low or negative real economic rates of return should not be underestimated. The costs and benefits of such regulation must be obvious. The study recommends that in the interests of economic efficiency there should be a requirement that authorities set prices to earn a specified real economic rate of return on assets that the community has bestowed upon them. If specific groups are to be subsidised this should be done directly or identifiably through the Budget rather than by the 'sleight of hand' that governments seem to have traditionally preferred. The real costs and consequences of such procedures, although they may not be immediately obvious and are spread throughout the community, are, in the long term, severe. As well as analysing the real economic rates of return the report considers the effects on the capital market of both the activities of authorities and their regulation. It is clear that some authorities have a particularly important effect on the capital markets. An example of the influence that can be exerted is the recently announced decision to issue index linked bonds for the State Electricity Commission of Victoria. Whatever the merits of such bonds, this will clearly have a significant impact on the capital market. I do not want to go over the many significant findings in relation to the capital market, except to point out that the shortening maturity structure of authorities' debts confronts both economic managers and the authorities themselves with some extremely complex issues. It is therefore important that proper consideration be given to measures which may alleviate these problems. Leasing and overseas borrowings offer the opportunities to overcome some of these problems, and the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations commissioned two studies by Dr C. R. Weston on these issues. Those studies, together with other research, make it clear that the full range of considerations have not been adequately taken into account when formulating policies in this area. The studies by Dr Weston, commissioned by the Committee, are published as part of the report. Finally, one of the most important findings relates to the leasing practices indulged in by at least one authority, ANL. Leasing offers the opportunity for a lessee to obtain lower lease costs as a result of certain tax advantages obtainable by a lessor. However, to receive these tax advantages there can be no understandings between the lessor and the lessee regarding ownership rights at the end of the lease. The Commissioner of Taxation has stated that if any such understanding exists that arrangement would be judged to be a hire purchase agreement and the tax advantages upon which these schemes depend would not be obtained. From information given by people in the leasing industry it appears that most lease agreements involve the provision that in such an event the lessee would have to meet the resulting tax obligations. The likelihood of this eventuating cannot be assessed at present as the ships which have been the subject of such arrangements have not yet reached the stage where ownership rights have been tested. However, the possible problems for the government of the day are clearly enormous. This example highlights the theme of this report. We ignore accountability and the full disclosure of relevant information at our national peril. The report now tabled is volume 1. Volume 2 will comprise a further study, which has been held up, through no fault of the Committee, because of certain problems with an econometric computer model and will be published as soon as it is available. That volume will also contain the Hansard report of evidence given to the Committee in relation to the operation of the Australian Loan Council, the recommendations of the Campbell Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System and their impact in relation to capital markets and statutory authority borrowings, and certain other evidence which the Committee regarded as being of long term significance and important to be published in an available form such as a report. I thank the Senate for the opportunity to make that statement in relation to the report tabled and the very important matters dealt with in the study which it contains. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania) —by leave-I move: That the Senate Select Committee on Statutory Authority Financing report to the Senate by 13 October 1983. That motion is moved in the hopeful anticipation that the computer problems will be overcome. But we are at the mercy of machinery and the model. As soon as this problem is overcome the report will be finalised and tabled in the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator GEORGES(Queensland) —I table further additional information received by Estimates Committee F relating to the Additional Estimates considered in May this year and seek leave for it to be incorporated in the Hansard record of the Committee's proceedings. Leave granted. Ministerial Statement Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs) —by leave- As honourable senators will be aware, the Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service was established in January 1982 with the opening of a centre in Adelaide. From then on, centres were opened progressively in State capitals and Darwin. The financial year 1982-83 saw the first full year of operation of the Service, which has continued to develop to meet the needs of Vietnam veterans. Expenditure by the Department of Veterans' Affairs on the Service in 1982-83 was $660,500. Functions of the Centres The centres were established to assist Vietnam veterans and their families in an atmosphere not affected by a formal Government Department environment. Counselling centres, except in Hobart, operate from premises separate from the Department of Veterans' Affairs which are accessible to veterans and their families. The Hobart centre which is presently located at the Repatriation General Hospital is to be moved to separate premises in November this year. The centres were established to deal with a range of problems including marital and family relationships as well as vocational, financial and legal problems, with the assistance where necessary of other specialised community agencies. As many clients have presented with behavioural or psychological problems, the type of counselling required has predominantly been therapeutic rather than of an advice -problem solving nature. There have been relatively few referrals to community agencies. A close relationship is built up between counsellor and client in these circumstances and referral of clients to other agencies would be undesirable. The counsellors in the VVCS require a wide range of skills. Demand Mr Deputy President, the demand for counselling is continuing to grow. The Service has handled 1,721 individual veterans, 1,338 of them in the 1982-83 financial year. As wives and families are involved, the number of people assisted directly or indirectly by the Service is much higher. In 1982-83 there was a total of 14,914 client contacts, which included extensive interviews involving not only veterans but also their spouses and other members of the family. Some clients are reluctant to come to the centres and contact often is by telephone. Veterans coming to the centre have many problems. The most common group of problems is what might be termed behavioural problems embracing such things as violence, withdrawal, irritability, anxiety, insomnia and depression. Staffing I am advised on the operation of the Counselling Service by a national advisory committee which is chaired by the ex-service representative on the Repatriation Commission and includes representatives of the Returned Services League and the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia. On the recommendation of that committee, staff was increased in the Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth centres to provide additional counselling capacity to undertake country visits. Some difficulties have been experienced in filling vacancies in the Brisbane and Perth centres. Part time staff were also added to the Brisbane and Hobart centres to assist with the work there. The part time position in Hobart will become full time when the centre moves to its new location later this year. To improve the service to country areas, regional centres are being established in Canberra and Townsville. Staff have been selected for both centres and services should be available in November. An evaluation of the operations of the counselling centres is being undertaken. Professor Ian Waterhouse of Macquarie University, the chairman of the review committee, has put to me three interim recommendations, pending the final report . These are: Firstly, the Counselling Service should be continued for at least three years. Secondly, consideration should be given to the reclassification of the counsellor positions to recognise fully the responsibilities involved and to assist in the retention and attraction of qualified and experienced staff. Thirdly, staffing of the Service should be slightly expanded to enable the current and potential workloads to be met with an acceptable professional level of counselling standards. I have accepted Professor Waterhouse's advice and announce to the Senate that the Counselling Service will be continued till at least 31 December 1986. The Public Service Board is being asked to examine the classifications and establishments required for the centres. The Service has been performing a valuable task under difficult conditions and, in doing so, has the support of Vietnam veterans and the organisations which represent them. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —by leave-I welcome the statement by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) concerning the first full financial year of the operation of the Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service. It is pleasing indeed to see that that Service, which was started by the previous Government in early 1982, is fulfilling the purpose for which it was established. It is an extremely important purpose. As the Minister indicated, in its experience to date, the Service has directly involved itself with some 1,700-odd Vietnam veterans. Altogether, its contacts in the period of its operation have covered clients to the extent of nearly 15,000. Clearly, it is performing a very useful and proper task. It is also pleasing to note that the Counselling Service has extended itself geographically so that it exists not only in Adelaide, where it began, but in every capital city. I note that from now on country areas are to be brought into the range of this Service, because travel poses a severe problem for Vietnam veterans who live in country areas. The foreshadowed opening of centres in the cities of Canberra and Townsville-we hope this will occur promptly-is needed and appropriate. I am sure that the basic reason for the establishment of a counselling service such as this is to be found in the somewhat peculiar and tragic circumstances of the Vietnam War itself. Significant mental as well as physical strain was placed on those who participated in that war. It must be remembered that the Vietnam veterans displayed all the courage, discipline and fighting characteristics of Australian forces throughout the decades. But they were placed in the extraordinary and difficult circumstances of being involved in a conflict for which total and absolute support was not always seen in their homeland. Also they fought in a difficult and unusual terrain and in an area in which it was, amongst other things, extraordinarily difficult to identify friend from foe. All of those problems must have added to the extreme mental pressure on Vietnam veterans, the effect of which is still being observed. I am happy to see that the Government, in this statement, has accepted the three interim recommendations of Professor Waterhouse; that is, the scheme is to be expanded and is to continue for not less than a further three years; it is recognised that there is a particular quality necessary in counsellors; and there will be an opportunity to upgrade and slightly increase the numbers involved in this area. I welcome the statement. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —by leave-I welcome the fact that the Government is continuing the previous Liberal Government's counselling service to Vietnam veterans as set out in the statement by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt). I wish to address myself to page 3 of the statement concerning the reference to the extension of the Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service into Canberra and Townsville. It has been a matter of some disappointment to Vietnam veterans in this area that the Service has not been available in the Canberra district. They have been expecting it for some time and felt that, under the previous announcement, it would have been available in Canberra long before this. This involves not only the veterans of Canberra but also the large population of Vietnam veterans in surrounding areas. I will not use the opportunity to tell the Senate about the difficulties and cost of transport between Canberra and Sydney these days, but it is a difficult problem. It is appropriate that this Service should be available in Canberra. I think it should have been provided sooner than this. I note the Minister said that staff have been selected and the Service should be available in November. I hope that, if possible, it will be available earlier than that. I ask the Minister to keep the matter closely under his eye to see that the Service is available in this area at least by November, so that Vietnam veterans in Canberra and the vast surrounding districts can have the benefit of the Service which so clearly is being successfully provided in the other State capitals. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —by leave-I congratulate the Government on its prompt response to the interim recommendations of Professor Waterhouse and its adoption of them. The first recommendation, in particular, has always been of concern to the counsellors of the Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service. The continuation of that Service has always been under a fairly tight time limitation. I have spoken to the counsellors on many occasions and the item which has always come to the fore is the necessity for continuation of the Service for some definite period. The three-year extension, I believe, would be the most welcome recommendation contained in the statement of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt). I would like to draw attention to two points. The first concerns the need during those three years for the Counselling Service to maintain an identity separate from the Repatriation Commission or the Department of Veterans' Affairs . It is extremely important for the veterans approaching the Counselling Service that its character not be that of a government department. The location now in Hobart, away from the repatriation hospital, will complete that severance from government. Veterans can feel that they are approaching a completely independent group; one which is not tied in any formal way to the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The second point I draw attention to is similar to that which was alluded to by Senator Reid regarding counselling services away from the capital cities. She drew attention to the cost of travel between Canberra and Sydney. I could raise the cost of travel between Townsville and Brisbane, it being the same as that between Brisbane and Melbourne. The difficulty is compounded inasmuch as Queensland, for some reason which cannot really be determined, although there could be some guesses, has a much larger percentage per head of population of veterans seeking counselling than have other States. It may be that people move to Queensland because it is a nice place or for some other reason. Certainly, the demand on the Counselling Service in Brisbane has been enormous by comparison with other States. The difficulty has always been that the counsellors have not been able to move out of Brisbane as they operate on an extremely limited country travel budget. I notice from the Minister's statement that this is to be rectified by enabling additional people to have greater flexibility of movement. I am sure that people , particularly those who live outside capital cities, will welcome that addition . I point to the fact that in my State Rockhampton is still disadvantaged. There is a fairly large number of veterans there. There is a very active group of the Vietnam Veterans Association there and the problems it has to deal with have convinced me that we need some type of part time assistance to support it in the immediate future, though I imagine that this may not be of long duration. In making these comments, I do not want to detract from the support that I wish to express to the Minister for his prompt and very reasonable acceptance of Professor Waterhouse's interim recommendations. I hope that the Government will continue to give the support it has shown in the statement to the Counselling Service. Senator GIETZELT(New South Wales-Minister for Veterans' Affairs) —by leave- Senator Reid, as did all the other representatives of Canberra, wrote to me in the last week about the problems of the Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service in Canberra. The difficulty that the Government faces is that there is an acute shortage of accommodation in Canberra. I have indicated to my Department that I know that to be the case because I have discussed the matter with the Department of Administrative Services and also with the Minister for Territories and Local Government, Mr Uren, who has some responsibilities with respect to Canberra. I am hopeful that we will very shortly be able to open a service for Vietnam veterans in anticipation of the November date that was expressed in the statement. Unfortunately, we have accommodation problems for public administration in Canberra, but every step is being taken by me to see that those matters will be expedited. With respect to Queensland, we have the premises but they have to be redesigned and reconstructed to meet requirements. As all honourable senators have said in their response to the statement, we try to create conditions-I support what the previous Government did-which are non-departmental. This factor is considered in the design of the premises. It is part of the process of creating conditions in which the veterans feel free and happy to relate their problems to the counsellors. Unfortunately, that takes time, but I can assure honourable senators that the Government is aware of its responsibilities in this matter and will waste no time in getting construction completed and accommodation organised . Senator MISSEN(Victoria) —I move: That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs for inquiry and report as soon as possible: The Joint Opinion dated 23rd August 1983 of the Attorney-General and the Solicitor- General given to the Royal Commission on Australian Security and Intelligence Agencies concerning a statement made in the South Australian Parliament by the Honourable Mr Peter Duncan, M.L.A. I seek leave to make a very short statement on behalf of the Chairman of the Committee. Leave granted. Senator MISSEN —The Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, Senator Tate, has spoken to Mr Spender, who is the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege that is looking at the question of parliamentary privilege, to assure him that in such an investigation it is not proposed to overlap or run across the inquiry of that Committee. The particular part of the statement that I think is probably of greatest concern to the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee is that containing the views expressed with regard to the constitutional powers of the Commonwealth in relation to privilege in State parliaments and by members of State parliaments. That is probably the question which is most appropriate for reference to the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee. It is not to deal with the general questions of Commonwealth privilege. I thought that should be made clear and Senator Tate asked me to do so. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion by (Senator Gietzelt) agreed to: 1. That the Senate concurs with the resolution transmitted to the Senate by message No. 68 of the House of Representatives relating to amendments to the resolution of appointment of a Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform. 2. That the foregoing resolution be communicated to the House of Representatives by message. Consideration resumed from 7 September 1983. Clause 25 (Powers of court in custodial proceedings). Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(11.00) —I support amendments Nos (25) and (26) proposed by Senator Walters as they were recommended by the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act. As it is hedged around it will not enable the courts to introduce fault. I think it would be a great mistake to have a great deal of consideration of litigation that dealt with the activities of the parties. Their conduct as parents is, I think, the point that is stressed. From this point of view it would widen what the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has done in his amendments. I think it would be well worth while to have these amendments in the Bill. (Quorum formed) Amendments negatived. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Sibraa) —The question is: That the clause stand as printed. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.03) -Mr Temporary Chairman, I think there is some confusion as to what we are dealing with. I understood that we were dealing with Senator Walters's amendments. Senator Walters does not happen to be here at present. Senator Gareth Evans —That is her problem. Senator HARRADINE —I, too, was expecting that the debate on other matters would proceed for a little longer than it did. I wish to raise a matter in regard to clause 25 (d) which, in part, seeks to add proposed new sub-section (1B) which states: A court shall not make an order . . . unless- (c) the court is satisfied that, having regard to the counselling and welfare facilities of the court, it is not practicable to require the parties to the proceedings to attend a conference as mentioned in paragraph (a). Many matters relating to custody, access, the welfare of children and family relationships are already the subject of much counselling work in community family agencies. There has been a good deal of comment by the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans) that the counselling and welfare facilities of the Family Court are overloaded at present. The fact is that this argument has been used by the Attorney-General for his opposition to some of the measures that have been put forward and which otherwise he has agreed to in principle. I am now trying to suggest to the Minister that it might well be important to recognise that the welfare of children and family relationships are already the subject of much counselling work done by community family agencies. Again, the danger for parties can be that in trying to assess their own marital and family relationships they are confined within the legal framework which allows them little space for review and change. If we are going to maintain that the Court has this waiver power having regard to the counselling and welfare facilities of the Court, it would not be practicable to require the parties to the proceeding to attend the conference mentioned in paragraph (a) of proposed new sub-section (1B). All sorts of other counselling agencies are available that may well have been involved in discussions relating to family relationships and the welfare of children. In my view, one way of broadening the options that the parties have is to make an addition to proposed sub-section (1B). Proposed new sub-section (1B) (a) states: the parties to the proceedings have attended a conference in relation to the matter to which the proceedings relate with a court counsellor or welfare officer; I would like the Attorney-General to think about adding the following words to paragraph (a): or a counsellor from an approved family counselling and welfare organisation. I would like the Minister to direct his attention to the problem that seems to arise in proposed new sub-section (1B) (c). I remind the Committee that proposed new sub-section (1B) (c) is a new paragraph which the legislation before us seeks to include in the original Act. Does the Attorney-General consider that the idea of having other agencies-other words could be used-involved would be a suitable arrangement? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(11.07) —I am certainly happy to take on board the matters that Senator Harradine has raised. I am not sure that it would be appropriate to try to tighten up the language of the section in this respect, although as a practical policy and administration matter there may be some room for further guidance to be given to the courts in the exercise of these powers. The main reason, as I understand it, why proposed new sub-section (1B) (c) is in the Bill, giving an out, as it were, in circumstances where it is said to be not practicable for counselling to take place, is to cover the situation primarily of country towns and regional centres where the magistrates exercise this jurisdiction and where there simply may not be the counselling facilities available, not only in the context of the official court counselling services but also, indeed, the voluntary marriage guidance organisations which play such a valuable supplementary role in the major cities. It is to cover those kinds of contingencies where the magistrate feels able to make the order on the basis of the evidence available to him, but it simply is not practicable to require the full panoply of counselling to precede that decision. That is why the paragraph is in the legislation. I would hope that that would only apply in the marginal case. It may be that we can make some administrative arrangements to ensure that that is so to the extent that it is not at the moment. I would certainly take the point that the honourable senator makes. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(11.09) —I think that Senator Walters spoke to the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) about the same subject I want to raise. When this clause was under consideration prior to the adjournment debate last night the Committee had before it amendments moved by Senator Walters. Although I did not indicate my support for the actual terms of the amendments, I did suggest to the Attorney-General that, having embarked upon the listing of criteria for the Court to take into account in custody matters, I thought there was in fact some substance, in aspects of Senator Walters's amendment and that the criteria in the Bill should be redrafted to take account of some of the considerations that were contained in those amendments. I instanced the criteria about education and upbringing. I think also that the reference in the first proposed new sub-paragraph to the conduct of the parents as parents, is not perhaps fully comprehended by one of the criteria in the Bill to which the Attorney-General referred. That may be the subject of some further debate. I am concerned about what has happened to the suggestion that the matter might be looked at again and a substitute amendment to this clause might be promoted. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.11) —I am sorry I was not in the chamber. I obviously missed the defeat of my amendments by, I suppose, one minute. I was outside talking to Senator Elstob regarding a committee matter. I had not, in the chamber last night, completed my argument, which I hoped would have convinced the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). When I spoke to him outside the chamber he told me-I do not want this to be confused-very clearly that he was sympathetic to the situation. He felt that while there may be a reintroduction of fault in bringing in the conduct of the parents, he was sympathetic to that when custody cases were being dealt with. I went on to explain the reasons for some of the guidelines that I had put down. He very kindly cut me short and said that there was no need for me to explain because he felt that he could accommodate my view; that all that would be needed would be the tidying up of the wording. As he may recall, I said that I was willing to forgo that aspect of my amendment No. (26) which dealt with the effect of the separation on two children because I believed his amendment covered that, although I felt my amendment was slightly better. The Attorney certainly did lead me to believe last night that he would agree to my amendment No. (25) which deals with the relevant conduct of parents as parents, the relevant conduct of step-parents-I even went into detail as to why I believe step-parents or people associated with custody should be included-and the wishes of the child's parent or parents. Unfortunately, I missed the debate on my amendments by just one minute. Senator Missen —I do not think that we finished that. Senator Harradine then got the floor. Senator WALTERS —I was informed that-- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Sibraa) —Order! I said 'The noes have it'. There was one voice. Those amendments have been dealt with. Senator Watson —Two honourable senators said yes, and one honourable senator said no. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —No. Senator Sir John Carrick —Senator Harradine then rose. Senator WALTERS —Seeing that there is confusion, perhaps we could have a re-vote on the amendments. If the Attorney-General, under the circumstances, would allow the debate to continue I would be most appreciative. I would also be most appreciative for his answer about the matter which I put to him in discussions outside the chamber. As far as I am concerned, it needs to be clarified. He did not say that he was going to seek further advice. He definitely said that the whole thing needed tidying up. I believe that since then the Attorney-General has sought further advice and that he is not as keen to tidy it up as he was last night. I would be most grateful if the Attorney would allow the debate to continue. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(11.15) —I wish to clarify what we are debating. As I understand it, Mr Temporary Chairman, you declared Senator Walters's amendments defeated, which means that we are just debating clause 25-- Senator Missen —No. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Yes. Senator GARETH EVANS —That is correct, as I understand it. The Temporary Chairman has declared the amendments defeated. We are simply debating now clause 25 at large. If there is to be any further debate on the particular content of Senator Walters's proposition it would need to be rather swiftly turned into the form of an amendment with which we can in fact come to grips. I do not resist that course being followed should Senator Walters or Senator Durack wish to draft another amendment, perhaps less unintelligible in parts than the amendments moved last night. I am sure we would have a foundation on which we could debate this matter. Perhaps we could focus debate simply by such an amendment being drafted around the two particular matters about which I talked to Senator Walters last night-that is, the insertion of a particular criterion cast in terms of the Court having regard to the conduct of parents as parents. Perhaps we could further clarify and sharpen the debate by having another criterion, by which the Court should have regard to considerations relating to the education and upbringing of children. I think an amendment cast in those terms would concentrate our minds on the questions now at issue. I do not resist that course now being followed. What I do have to say, however, is that following discussions in this chamber and outside it last night I did take further advice this morning from the Chairman of the Family Law Council of Australia, His Honour Mr Justice Fogarty. I did receive advice from the Principal Registrar of the Family Court of Australia. I have had further advice tendered by another senior academic in the family law area who heard the debate last night and rang to express his point of view on it. I did have sympathy for the general tenor of what Senator Walters was proposing and I still do in the sense that I believe that it is legitimate and proper for the Court to take into account considerations relating to parents ' performance as parents if the Court is effectively to be able to determine what is in the best interests of the child and to have regard, as a paramount matter, to the welfare of the child. The difficulty, however, which has been put to me very strongly by the people to whom I have just referred, is that there are real problems associated with the reintroduction of conduct language into the text of the Bill. I should like to summarise the points that were put to me, and which I have found persuasive, in the following terms. It has been put to me that over the years the Family Court has endeavoured to educate practitioners in particular not to fill the pleadings in family law matters with personal evidence against the other party to those proceedings. That has, on all the available experience-I think this probably will be appreciated by Senator Durack-a very destructive effect on the parties themselves and has a negative effect on attempts at conciliation. The view that has been put to me by His Honour Mr Justice Fogarty in particular is that this approach is at last beginning to be appreciated by practitioners in the family jurisdiction and that there is a real risk that the re-insertion of any express references to conduct in the text of the legislation would simply open the way for renewed muck raking by the parties to dissolution procedures, particularly perhaps by less scrupulous practitioners and particularly by those individuals who tend to act for themselves. It has been put to me that the subtlety of the language proposed, which is not conduct at large but rather conduct as parents, would not be likely to be appreciated by many practitioners, by litigants in person or indeed by most magistrates in this jurisdiction, if not perhaps by the judges themselves. There is a real concern to focus attention on parenting capacity as being the crucial consideration in determining these custody and welfare of the child issues. It was put to me that the language of the criteria we are proposing now to insert and in particular sub-paragraph (iv) , which deals with the capacity of each parent to care adequately for the child, is sufficient to draw specific attention to this particular matter. Last night, after discussing these matters with various senators, including Senator Walters, I had thought it might be quite appropriate to build education and upbringing into the explicit language of these criteria, as indeed was proposed by the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act. It has been put to me that even that may create difficulties to the extent that it would represent an encouragement to judges and magistrates determining these matters to apply their own subjective views about education, about the respective merits and advantages of private or religious schools versus public or state schools, and so on. Whilst no doubt they will be applying these values and considerations in any event to some extent in weighing and balancing these matters, they should not be specifically encouraged to do so by statutory language on the basis that the language in sub-paragraph (v) is broad enough to encompass a reference to those sorts of considerations. It is a matter for nice judgment as to just how far one goes in these measures. I do not think I am at odds with Senator Durack, Senator Walters or Senator Harradine in wanting the Family Court to have regard in appropriate cases to a demonstrable lack of parenting capacity on the part of one or other of the contestant for the custody of a child. Of course it is appropriate that the Court should have regard to that and to all the considerations which go into an evaluation of it; but, as I have said, the extent to which one really encourages the parties to this litigation to use that circumstance and provides statutory encouragement to have regard to those considerations is a delicate question. It is a nice question as to how far one really encourages parties, as a result of that occurring, to get back into, through the back door, as it were, all the mud slinging, and diatribe and personal accusations that have been such an unhappy feature of family law litigation in the past and which we have been trying to avoid. The main point on which I finish, is that with which I started. Any encouragement to that state of affairs in the pleadings or in the matters actually dealt with overtly by the Court will not encourage the speedier and more satisfactory resolution of marital grievances. It will be a barrier to reconciliation, not an encouragement to it. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Sibraa) —I advise the Committee of the situation we are in at the moment. The question that Senator Walters's amendments Nos (25) and (26) be agreed to was put by me. I then declared that the noes had it. I said 'The noes have it' for the second time and that ruling was not challenged. So the situation at the moment is that we are dealing with clause 25 in its entirety. Senator Harradine is supporting what I have just said. I call Senator Durack. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(11.23) —I am concerned about the situation that has arisen. I accept the explanation of it, but I do not think it should have occurred. We left this debate at 11 o'clock last night on the understanding that we would have the response from the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) which we have just had. That response should have been given before the amendments were put to the vote in the way the Temporary Chairman has just indicated. The Temporary Chairman himself probably was not here last night, and I do not want to blame anybody. All I am saying is that the situation was that we all expected to have the explanation the Attorney has just given when we left consideration of the matter last night. In regard to what the Attorney has said, I believe that the only proper course to take is to postpone further consideration of this clause in order to consider whether or not some other amendments could be made which may accommodate the concerns that the Attorney and Senator Walters and Senator Missen obviously have . There is obviously a clear conflict between the approach of the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act and that of a number of very expert advisers. I am not surprised at the advice the Attorney has received. It is advice which I received from similar quarters, and it convinced me that it would be undesirable to make any amendments to this clause. The Senate will recall that the Bill I introduced did not make any amendments to it. The fact is that once we embark upon amendments, this statement of criteria, then we have to try to arrive at a decent and satisfactory result. Obviously there is concern about the criteria in the Bill, and obviously Senator Evans himself shares some of that concern. I do not think it is satisfactory to rely on sub-paragraph (v) to the extent that Senator Evans does. Once we start to specify criteria, we weaken the effect of a general provision such as sub-paragraph (v). I am concerned that it might be used to indicate that Parliament's views were very firmly directed to the first four criteria, that these are the matters which should be concentrated on in the Family Court, and so on. I suggest that we postpone this clause and have the opportunity to see whether some private discussions might lead to a redrafting of the clause. The Attorney might be prepared to go further and give us the services of his very expert drafter of these clauses. I am sure she would have, with her capacity and knowledge, a real contribution to make. I do not want to have to embark upon drafting something which I do not really believe is a good idea anyway, but I think it would be very helpful if, in the spirit of non-party debate which I hope we are getting back to, some effort can be made to see whether an agreeable compromise can be reached, as we still have plenty of matters to discuss on this Bill. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(11.27) —I do not dissent from the course proposed by Senator Durack. It might be possible to find a form of words, for example in sub-paragraph (iv), which while not expressly referring to conduct might make it clear that the kind of parenting capacity we are talking about extends to more than simply a capacity physically to care and protect, which might be the concern that Senator Walters had. It may be that in the context of sub-paragraph (v) there could be some reference to education and upbringing as one amongst a number of criteria. There might be a solution to this if we can approach it in a calm and sensible atmosphere. In those circumstances I would be happy to postpone consideration of this clause until a later hour. I add that I hope it might be possible to complete the Family Law Amendment Bill before the end of today. Not many of the remaining matters are the subject of acute controversy involving large numbers of senators, and I hope that we can proceed rather briskly in putting our views on the remaining matters and then come back to this clause no later than this evening. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.29) — I want to make it clear that I cannot accept the situation whereby we in the legislature appear to be directed by judges, who are actually in an administrative capacity. Frankly, I feel a little disturbed that since the time the amendments were put forward here discussions have been held between judges and the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) but not with those who put forward the propositions. I am quite concerned about the whole issue not only of what the judges are doing but also of what the counselling services are doing in the Family Court situation. I do not want to get started on that because I am amassing a good deal of evidence about it and it may well be that at some stage something more substantial might need to be said about it. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(11.30) —I move: That consideration of clause 25 be postponed. If the Attorney-General will be kind enough to make available some expert assistance we will see whether something can be done during the day. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(11.31) —I will, provided that spirit of co-operation is reciprocated. Question resolved in the affirmative. Clauses 26 to 29-by leave-taken together. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.32) —The last line of clause 26 states: . . . in which the welfare of a child of a marriage is relevant,'. The wording in the previous amendment Bill stated: . . . in which the welfare of a child of a marriage who has not attained the age of 18 years is relevant,'. I wonder whether that is a drafting error or whether it was deliberate. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(11.34) —As I understand it, this is a response to a matter which was put by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. A retarded or invalid child of a marriage may be over the age of 18, nonetheless, it is appropriate that there be separate representation to protect the interests of the child in question. Clauses agreed to. Proposed new clause 29A. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(11.35) —The next amendment standing in my name has two different and separate matters in it. The first amendment deals with the right of the spouse to maintenance. It is a rewriting of section 72 of the Family Law Act. The second part of the amendment deals with variations in maintenance. They are different subjects. I seek leave to have them dealt with separately. Leave granted. Senator MISSEN —I move: (31) Page 24, after clause 29, insert the following new clause: ''29A. Section 72 of the Principal Act is repealed and the following section is substituted: Right of spouse to maintenance '72. A party to a marriage is liable to maintain the other party, to the extent that the first-mentioned party is reasonably able to do so, if, and only if, that other party is unable to support herself or himself adequately whether- (a) by reason of having the care and control of a child of the marriage who has not attained the age of 18 years; (b) by reason of age or physical or mental incapacity for appropriate gainful employment; or (c) for any other adequate reason, having regard to any relevant matter referred to in sub-section 75 (2).'. The purpose of this proposed new clause is to rewrite section 72. It states on what grounds people are entitled to be maintained. Over the years there has been some confusion as to precisely what is intended by the section. Perhaps the simple way for me to explain this amendment would be for me to read from paragraph 5.8 of the report of the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act. This amendment is in the terms of recommendation 22 of the Committee. Paragraph 5.8 states: In relation to s.72, decisions of the court have indicated the possibility of three different interpretations of the phase 'having regard to any relevant matter referred to in section 75(2)'. On the first interpretation, attention would only be directed to the matter enumerated in s.75(2) if the need for maintenance could not be established by reference to the provision of s. 72 itself. It would only be relevant to determine whether there was any other ' adequate reason'. On the second interpretation, s.75(2) would be considered in the interpretation of the phrase 'that the other party to the marriage is unable to support himself or herself adequately'. 'Any other adequate reason' would be given equal weight in determining this matter with the two matters of responsibility for a child and fitness for employment to which s.72 makes specific mention. The third interpretation which is presumably the intended interpretation reads 's.72 as being governed in all respects by s.75(2) so that the listed factors would be taken into consideration by the court in relation to all aspects of the provision'. The Committee believed, as did the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs in 1974, that the third interpretation was the one intended. At paragraph 5.20 of the report the Committee dealt with the vexed question of the extent to which social service payments and entiltements should be taken into account. This is a matter, of course, which runs into controversy in other amendments to be moved later on. Paragraph 5.20 states: 5.20 Another line of cases, however, proceed according to the first construction of s.72 referred to in para 5.8. In this view social services entitlements are irrelevant in considering whether the applicant could be said to be unable to support herself.14 Whilst this approach is consistent with the logical reading of the Family Law Act as it is drafted, it is clearly contrary to the intention of the legislature as relevant in the extract from the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs quoted in para 5.15. If the recommendation as to the re-drafting of section 72 were to be inserted in the Act this would have the effect of directing an interpretation of section 72 in line with the Senate Standing Committee's original understanding of how it would operate. This would defeat the purpose of the compulsory maintenance provisions of the Social Services Act. That has been changed, of course, since then. The point is that some confusion and differences of views have been expressed over the years as to what the meaning of section 72 is. The Committee felt that the proposed new clause would have the effect of bringing all these matters into consideration in determining the parties entitled to maintenance. I suggest that the section should be clarified in that way. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(11.37) —The Government has some reservations as to whether it is really necessary to have proposed new clause 29A drafted in the terms that Senator Missen suggests. But on balance we take the view that his amendment should not be opposed. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.38) —This amendment repeals section 72 of the principal Act. As I see it, nothing in the amendments of the Attorney-General amends in any way section 72. Is that right? The CHAIRMAN —The only amendment before the Committee at the moment is proposed new clause 29A. Senator HARRADINE —The only amendment before the Committee is to take out section 72. Senator Gareth Evans —No, to rewrite it as proposed by Senator Missen. It loses nothing of itself. It is just clarification. Senator HARRADINE —I feel that Senator Missen's amendment does not remove the problems currently in section 72. I have no doubt that I will be corrected if I am wrong, but it appears to me that the amendment removes from the husband his previous legal duty to maintain his wife. It imposes upon a wife a positive, primary, legal duty to maintain herself. It also imposes upon a wife a positive, legal duty to maintain her husband in certain circumstances. It imposes on a husband a legal duty to maintain his wife only in certain circumstances. The amendment disimplies that there is a change in what was previously the concept of the requirement of maintenance, particularly in relation to the wife. The Act imposes a positive duty on the wife to maintain herself during marriage and upon the breakdown of the marriage. Senator Gareth Evans —Not really. Senator HARRADINE —Well, I would like that explained because nothing I read in section 72 entitles her in principle to maintenance from her husband. I am concerned that it really undermines the woman's role as a wife and mother. For example, if she has been deserted and the husband has made an application for the dissolution of the marriage, I am concerned to ensure that what was always regarded as his legal obligation to pay maintenance is maintained. I know that the Attorney-General is also concerned about that. He made a statement earlier in the year about that very matter. I wonder whether he could explain further what action is proposed in that regard. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney- General)(11.41) —I will endeavour to do so. I will not explain what further action is proposed but simply endeavour to explain what the original concept of section 72 is all about. It will be appreciated that its maintenance guarantee provision, which applies irrespective of whether the marriage is continuing or whether it is breaking down, is a general application. It is not squarely related to a dissolution or desertion context. The point of the section is not to undermine the traditional role of the woman as wife and mother but, to some extent, to undermine the traditional picture of the woman perhaps as a chattel or as a pet of the husband in respect of which the obligations flow one way only, from the husband to look after this poor creature who, as a statutory or legal assumption, is incapable of looking after herself except with the husband's support. The section has introduced in essence non-sexist criteria for the application of maintenance, which some people no doubt find distressing but which means that in practice, and in the way the section is drafted, each party to the marriage is obliged to look after the other party of the marriage to the extent that, firstly, there is a need on the part of the party being looked after and, secondly, to the extent of the resources available to the party who is doing the looking after. That is the way the section is constructed. It does not focus specifically on obligations, certainly of the husband to look after the wife. Nor does it in any way undermine that obligation of the husband to look after the wife. It creates an additional obligation on the wife to look after the husband in the admittedly unlikely event that it is the husband who is the person with more need and the wife the person with more resources. But in the usual situation, which will be the usual situation-that is, it is the wife who has the need and the husband who has the resources-this section does absolutely nothing, as I read it, and as anybody has read it since it was enacted, to undermine that traditional obligation. I hope that is sufficient to explain to Senator Harradine what it is about. Certainly, as I understand Senator Missen's amendment, it preserves that quality in the original section and just clarifies its application in a number of circumstances where it may be thought to need clarification. Amendment agreed to. Proposed new clause 29B. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(11.43) —I move: (31A) Page 24, after new clause 29A, insert the following new clause: ''29B. After section 74 of the Principal Act the following section is inserted: Variations in maintenance payable in respect of children '74A. (1) The regulations may provide for the annual variation of orders for the payment of maintenance in respect of children by reference to variations in the cost of providing for a child ascertained from estimates of the cost of providing for a child published by the Australian Statistician. '(2) Where regulations have been made under sub-section (1), an order that is made under this Act for the payment of maintenance in respect of a child has effect, subject to any order of the court that made the first-mentioned order or of any other court, as from each anniversary of the making of the order as if the order had been varied in accordance with the regulations.'.''. Clause 29B is also a recommendation of the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act. It has come in for some criticism and I understand it will be opposed by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). I should explain that the Joint Committee felt it was desirable to insert this clause into section 74 of the Act . Senator Gareth Evans —An idea whose time has not yet come. Senator MISSEN —Perhaps the time has not yet come and perhaps inflation is too great. That may be the reason why it is necessary now. Instead of people having to make application, the regulations would provide for an annual variation of orders for payments of maintenance in respect of children. This would save parties having to go back for what are sometimes relatively small changes and incurring the cost of litigation involved. I should in fairness say that there has been some criticism of my amendment. I will probably incur Senator Harradine 's wrath but judges, who shall remain nameless, have taken an interest in these amendments and have spoken to me and written to me, in one case referring to my second proposal for an automatic adjustment of child maintenance orders. One judge stated: This is fine in theory and has always had a lot of support but there are enormous practical difficulties about it. Another judge has written to me saying: I do not object to the amendment of section 72. That is the one we have just passed- The proposed section 74A (1) seems to me to raise a host of practical difficulties and open up further room for arguments. He spoke about fractions of cents and so forth, and asked: 'How would you calculate the entitlement, by reference to the original order or the rounded off order?' There are no doubt some difficulties in that regard, although I do not think that is of major importance. When the Family Law Council considered this recommendation of our Joint Committee in the Council's sixth annual report in 1980-81 it stated in paragraph 1.86: Council also discussed a recommendation that there be an automatic adjustment, on a periodic basis, of all maintenance orders and registered maintenance agreements in accordance with the Consumer Price Index (Joint Select Committee recommendation 28). Although Council could see that the proposal had a number of advantages, it ultimately recommended that it was opposed to all automatic adjustment to maintenance orders because of the practical difficulties of implementation. The Council notes that the Chief Judge was also opposed to both of these recommendations. As an alternative to the second recommendation, she suggested that judges should be encouraged to build in a discretionary standard form adjustment as part of the order, although such standard clauses should not be for more than three years. I think it is fair to say that these are the difficulties encountered. I have moved this amendment because it was one of the recommendations of the Joint Committee. It might be difficult to see it being carried at this stage but I think I should put on record both the recommendation which has been made and the statements that have been made about it. I support it but will not go to the barricades. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(11.47) —This is beginning to sound a little like a cracked record, but I do have sympathy for the aspirations underlying Senator Missen's amendment. I simply am obliged to take the view on advice-I regret Senator Harradine-that it is not practicable; that it simply will not work. The Family Law Council, to whose report on this Senator Missen has referred, has considered this proposal very closely on not just one occasion after the submission of the report of the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act but subsequently as well. On both occasions it came down with the conclusion that to try to build in a mandatory statutory adjustment of this kind simply will not work. The way ahead here does seem to lie in the direction of discretionary orders being made by judges of the kind Senator Missen adverted to , and which the Chief Judge has espoused; namely, discretionary standard forms of adjustment as part of the basic maintenance order for a maximum period of, say, three years. The problem is that circumstances vary so much from case to case. It is thought by all the practitioners at the coal face in this area that, as desirable as it might be to avoid this repeated return to the courts to get adjustments to maintenance orders, it simply will not work to have the kind of statutory provision that Senator Missen proposes. Amendment negatived. Clause 30 (Matters to be taken into consideration with respect to maintenance). Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(11.49) —I move: (32) Page 24, paragraph (a), proposed new paragraph 75 (2) (f), lines 15 to 23, leave out the proposed paragraph, insert the following new paragraph: ''(f) the eligibility of either party for a pension, allowance or benefit under any superannuation fund or scheme, whether the fund or scheme was established, or operates, within or outside Australia, and the rate of any such pension, allowance or benefit being paid to either party;''. I foreshadowed this amendment in my speech in the second reading debate. Because I share the view of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) that this debate ought to proceed with a little more expedition I do not propose to go over the reasons again. I believe they are summarised in a joint statement issued by Senator Chaney and myself, on 21 January this year, when we were Ministers in the previous Government. In fact, for the sake of the record I might seek leave to incorporate that statement in Hansard. Perhaps Senator Gareth Evans or one of his advisers is familiar with it. This whole matter of the extent to which the parties or a party to a marriage are able to slough off on to the taxpayer their financial responsibilities which arise from the breakdown of a marriage and subsequent divorce has been the subject of long standing concern. There has been a great increase in total payments for the supporting parent's benefit in particular, and to some extent the widow's pension. These are subjects on which Senator Chaney is much more competent to speak than I am. I am pleased to see that he has now come into the chamber and no doubt will say a few words on the subject. I do not want to go into all the details of it. I am relying primarily on the view that was expressed in the report of the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act on this subject. I adopt its words: The Committee concludes that the law should re-inforce the policy that, wherever possible, families should be supported by private rather than public means. In furtherance of this policy, relatives should not be in a position to transfer their obligations to support relatives to the community at large where they are, financially, in a position to contribute to the support of those relatives. At the same time those without adequate means of support should be entitled to sustenance from the State to the extent of their need. That is a principle with which I thoroughly and entirely agree. It is a view which I held when the Family Law Act was brought into operation. I cannot recall , but I do not think any amendment to this provision was moved in the Committee stage of the earlier debate on that legislation. Maybe, against my better judgment, I was talked out of it by somebody, but it certainly has been a long standing concern. I think the concerns that I have had have been reinforced by the practice that has developed. There is ample evidence that people do reach agreements because they are aware of the provision in section 75 of the Act which directs that the Court shall take into consideration eligibility for a Commonwealth or State pension. Without putting too fine a point on it, this is leading to abuse. Major practical problems are involved in determining how adequately to tackle this abuse. It may well be that my amendment alone will not be sufficient, but I put it forward to see whether something can be done. Perhaps this amendment is not adequate in itself, but I believe it would be adequate provided the Social Security Act were administered in the way in which the previous Government decided to administer it. Under that Act before people could get social security benefits they were required to pursue their rights to maintenance. If the maintenance is being determined without regard to those social security benefits, the right to and the extent of the benefits which they can receive will be determined after the ability to pay of the other spouse has been determined, not the other way around, which I think leads to abuse. On 11 April this year I was very pleased to read in the Australian some views of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) which, as reported, seem to me to be almost the same as the views of Senator Chaney and me. I draw the attention of the Attorney-General to that article. No doubt he has read it. As a corollary to what is mentioned in the article, adequate collection agencies should be established. That is another matter altogether. I recognise that it is a question of government resources and so on, but I think the time has come when some step has to be taken and something has to be done. I have moved the amendment with that object in mind. Mr Chairman, may I have leave to incorporate in Hansard the statement of Senator Chaney and me? Senator Gareth Evans —By all means. Senator DURACK —And the newspaper report of the comments of the Attorney-General ? Senator Gareth Evans —I am not so sure about that one. Senator DURACK —Can the Attorney-General not be persuaded? The CHAIRMAN —Leave is granted to the first request and not the second. Is that correct, Senator Evans? Senator Gareth Evans —Yes. Senator Chaney —I will read the second one. Senator Gareth Evans —Oh, incorporate it then. The CHAIRMAN —Both documents will be incorporated rather than being read. The documents read as follows- Amendment to provide more realistic maintenance contributions The Government will prepare an amendment to the Family Law Act so that courts will no longer be obliged to take into account the payment of means tested Commonwealth pensions and benefits when fixing maintenance payments. The Attorney-General, Senator Peter Durack, Q.C., and the Minister for Social Security Senator Fred Chaney said the amendment would be considered with the other proposed amendments to the Act in the next session of Parliament. The Ministers said the amendment reflected the Government's view that the primary responsibility for the provision of maintenance for children and spouses should be on the separating parties and not on the community at large. The Government's view was that a person capable of supporting his children and former spouse should not be relieved of any responsibility to do so merely because the dependent spouse was eligible for social security benefits. Senator Durack and Senator Chaney said the Government was aware that many single parents or separated parents depended entirely on support from the Government by way of social security benefits. The Government would take no action which would place the stability of those payments at risk. The purpose was to allow a more realistic contribution by the parties to the maintenance figure fixed by the courts. This means that the separating parties who could afford to do so would shoulder a burden previously borne by the taxpayer. Senator Durack and Senator Chaney said that the Government had taken into account observations made by the Joint Select Committee of the Parliament which inquired into the operation of the Family Law Act. In dealing with the operation of the present law in relation to maintenance the Joint Select Committee said: ''The Committee concludes that the law should re-inforce the policy that, wherever possible, families should be supported by private rather than public means. In furtherance of this policy, relatives should not be in a position to transfer their obligations to support relatives to the community at large where they are, financially, in a position to contribute to the support of those relatives. At the same time those without adequate means of support should be entitled to sustenance from the State to the extent of their need. This entitlement should not be dependent on the pursuit of often futile remedies for maintenance. However, the State through the Department of Social Security should be empowered to pursue and recover from liable relatives such contributions towards support as is reasonable in the circumstances.'' The Ministers said the Government had also agreed in principle to implement more efficient maintenance enforcement procedures. The Government had asked for a further and more detailed study to be carried out on the options available for better collection and enforcement of maintenance procedures before it finally decided on how the changes would be implemented. Canberra, 21 January 1983. 7/83 Canberra to hit maintenance dodgers The Federal Government may establish a national maintenance collection agency to force divorced husbands to pay maintenance to their wives and families. The move would reduce the soaring welfare bill and allow the Government to provide greater benefit to widows and orphans. The Federal Attorney-General, Senator Evans, told The Australian the Government was ''very alarmed'' at the high level of unenforced maintenance payments. He also foreshadowed moves to change legislation-probably the Family Law Act-to rationalise ''the relationship between social service payments and maintenance'' . The Government hopes to introduce these measures by the end of the year. It is disturbed at the $837 million it expects to have to make in supporting mothers' benefits in the next Budget. Senator Evans said the social security system was already ''vastly overstretched''. Forward budget estimates predict the supporting mothers' benefits bill could cost the Government $117 million more next year. In 1984-85 it will cost $937 million and in 1985-86, $1050 million. If the Government can slash this bill by forcing spouses to pay maintenance, it could save hundreds of millions of dollars. The Government was unable to give a figure for the amount which could be saved by the measures Senator Evans foreshadowed, but sources said it could be '' substantial''. Any changes to the Family Law Act would probably include removal of a section which directs courts to take welfare payments into account when setting maintenance payment levels. Senator Evans said his department was working closely with the Social Welfare Department in examining how to set up a national maintenance collection agency. He said he had also set up an internal inquiry within the Attorney-General's Department to ''develop the proposal in some detail''. ''I'm expecting a report from this inquiry in two or three months,'' he said. ''There is no doubt we can reduce the welfare budget if we have a more efficient maintenance collection system operating.'' Senator Evans said there were far too many ''spouses and kids who are suffering as a result of the inability of the present system-largely administered through clerks of courts of petty sessions-to really deliver the goods.'' He said the Federal Government wanted to establish a maintenance collection agency similar to bodies in South Australia and Western Australia. ''There, you have a government agency doing the job of collecting maintenance payments for you, collecting the dough from the offending spouse's paypacket and getting it into the hands of the people who deserve and need it,'' he said. ''You have to ensure people don't renege on their responsibilities.'' 'Senator Evans said he envisaged the national maintenance collection agency as ''a source of advice and negotiating help'' for aggrieved spouses and families in need of maintenance. The agency would co-ordinate court action ''where appropriate'' on behalf of offended spouses. ''It's a matter of professionalising the maintenance system rather than leaving it to the ad hoc method of individuals going along to get what help they can from friendly or otherwise local clerks of courts,'' he said. Any criteria the Government established for maintenance payments would not be ' 'a crude and simple set of tests.'' Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(11.55) —It is good to see that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) is always open to conviction by threats, if not by the use of logic and reason. The amendment moved by Senator Durack, which I earlier publicly indicated I would support, is an amendment which, as the shadow Attorney-General said, is but one of the steps which can be taken to change a situation which is causing some concern in the Australian community. I think one can look at that concern from several different points of view: From the point of view of how individuals are organising their lives and from the point of view of how individuals are affecting each other in particular in regard to the growing shift from private provision of support to relying upon taxpayers for support. One of the features of the changes which are occurring in Australia at the moment, which seems to disturb many of the people I meet all around Australia, is the growing number of people in the category of single parents who are dependent upon the state, upon taxpayers, through the payment by the Department of Social Security. As I say, that concern is based both on the situation of single parents and the difficulties they face and on the very large increase in cost which has occurred over the last 10 years. The main reason for this increase is not, as some people seem to think when they are making representations on this matter, that there has been a great increase in promiscuity in the community, a great increase in the number of people who carelessly or, some would even say intentionally, become pregnant. The major contributor to the very substantial rise in the number of people receiving the supporting parent's benefit is, of course, the breakdown of marriage. It is into that area that a larger and larger number of people fall each year, to be provided for from the public purse. That situation is one which I do not believe would be reversed by this amendment or, indeed, by any measures which are going to be taken. What can be done however is to do something to reduce the automatic way in which people can transfer private responsibilities on to the taxpayer. I think that this amendment is one of the steps, as the shadow Attorney-General said, which can most usefully be taken. The present situation is that the Government does not require that a spouse who is left with children to support should seek to take maintenance proceedings against the other spouse. Although there is a provision in the social security legislation to that effect, it was not administered for a long time. Indeed, it was not applied after the passage of the original Family Law Act, I understand at the direction of the Government. It was revised by the previous Government during my administration of the Department of Social Security. I understand that the requirement that reasonable steps be taken to seek maintenance has been discontinued again. The previous Government regarded this requirement as a sensible thing. It was not an absolute requirement that people take maintenance proceedings, but a requirement that reasonable steps be taken, and reasonable time was allowed to enable that to take place. However, the area with which we are immediately concerned is that when someone does seek maintenance and is relying on the provisions of the Family Law Act the amount of maintenance which is to be paid is to be determined bearing in mind the availability of assistance from the taxpayers, from the state, through the Department of Social Security. That means, of course, a discounting of the demands which will be made upon the other spouse. It involves a conscious act of policy that the assistance shall be available from the taxpayer in any event and that shall be taken into account before determining the level of contribution, if any, which will be required from the spouse. I do not think that it is old- fashioned or tory or conservative or in any sense a negative thing to suggest that responsibilities in this area should primarily be met by the individuals concerned. I say that being aware that in most cases of marital breakdown, or in many cases, there would simply not be the means available to ensure that an adequate income can be provided from the income which is available to those individuals. I accept the inevitability, the necessity and the propriety of the state being involved in providing assistance by way of income maintenance in circumstances in which there is simply not sufficient money involved. But I think the primary obligation ought to lie upon the parties. What that means in practice is that I think the obligation which is placed upon the Court ought to be to look at what the parties have in a material sense and it ought to make its determination on the basis of what is available to those individuals and the state should come in only after that calculation has been made to provide additional assistance where that is necessary. I accept that that will occur in a great number of cases. What I am saying is that at the moment the discounting is to the disadvantage of the taxpayer whereas I think the position ought to be reversed. I think that the individuals concerned should have to call upon their own resources before the taxpayer is called in aid. Again, I say that I do not believe that this is a conservative or reactionary view. It has aways struck me how easily people overlook the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child, which declaration points out the primary responsibility for the maintenance or care of children lies with the parents and that the child has a right to receive that sort of assistance. I believe that the same sort of principle applies here, that the primary obligation lies on the parties and I believe that the present state of the law ensures that there is too much diversion of that obligation or responsibility upon the taxpayer. The only other point I wish to make at this stage is to say that I note that there has been defeated in the Committee debate a proposal that there should be a two-year provision for divorce, that the evidentiary requirement for irretrievable breakdown should remain at one year and not be changed to two years. I should like to say that, in common with this provision, I believe that it is important that this Act should act as something of a signpost to the fact that the people of Australia, the Government of Australia, do regard marriage seriously. They regard entry into marriage as a serious matter, as an assumption of responsibilities and they regard the whole question of marriage as being something which in not simply to be regarded lightly, or to be regarded as the acceptance of responsibilities which can be so easily or too easily shucked off and put on to the shoulders of somebody else. I believe that the provision that we are seeking to amend is one of those negative signposts in the Family Law Act . I believe that it is an indication to the people of Australia that we easily see that in the event of someone walking out on a spouse there is an immediate direct responsibility on the taxpayer to look after the residue of that marriage . I believe for that reason that it would be a very desirable thing if the section were amended to restore the concept that the Court looks first to the parties rather than looking to the Department of Social Security in meeting these obligations. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(12.05) —Let me first clarify something about the article which appeared in the Australian of 11 April and which has been put on the record by Senator Durack and Senator Chaney. While it is a perfectly accurate account of my views to the extent that it emphasises my desire to rationalise the relationship between maintenance payments and the social security system, it is certainly not accurate to the extent that it conveys the flavour that it was me saying: Any changes to the Family Law Act would probably include removal of a section which directs courts to take welfare payments into account when setting maintenance payment levels . . . This is the paragraph of the report from which Senator Chaney and Senator Durack have derived obviously most nourishment in moving their particular amendment. Senator Durack —We thought we had converted you, that was all. Senator GARETH EVANS —That paragraph is not set in quotes. God knows from where it derives but it does not derive from anything that I said. I was talking only in terms of the proposed national maintenance collection inquiry and acknowledging in that context that there was a job of rationalisation to be done . Let me say that I do appreciate that there are many attractions from the point of view of both general principle and our hard pressed social security Budget for the kind of proposal that Senator Durack and Senator Chaney are suggesting, namely, that primary reliance be placed on the spouse to provide maintenance and that social security payments should only come in as a backstop to that rather than as a front line weapon in securing the necessary standard of living for the party in need. But the problem is how far one should go at the moment, while recognising the long term need to change the situation around. It is the Government's view, and one reached in consultation, I hasten to add, with the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes), that this amendment should not be accepted, certainly at this time, although there is a case for looking at it again when we have the national maintenance enforcement system in place, as I hope will be the case some time relatively early next year. The amendment moved by Senator Durack to section 75 (2) (f) of the Family Law Act merely has the effect of not requiring the court to take into account pensions or benefits received by a person under any law of the Commonwealth, or a State or Territory. The amendment, as I said in my brief comment on this in my reply to the debate on the second reading, would not prevent a court from taking account of a Commonwealth payment or pension under section 75 (2) (o) of the Act which still provides that the court may take into account: . . . any fact or circumstance which, in the opinion of the court, the justice of the case requires to be taken into account. So there would still remain a discretion vested in the Court to take these payments into consideration. Under the old Matrimonial Causes Act, which had no provisions of an explicit kind such as the present section 75 (2) (f) there was, I am told, very considerable uncertainty as to whether pension entitlement should be taken into account or not when assessing maintenance orders, and section 75 (2) (f) was essentially put in there to resolve that particular uncertainty. One of the difficulties that we see flowing from the adoption of Senator Durack's proposal is that it would return the courts to exactly that condition of uncertainty as to whether they should take that into account as they would be able to do under section 75 (2) (o) which was the problem under the previous legislation. I do take the view that persons who are capable of maintaining their spouses and children and who are in need of financial support should not be relieved of this responsibility because the dependent spouse is eligible for social security benefits. I readily accept Senator Chaney's proposition that such a view is not confined to tories and right wing ideologues and other unsavoury souls that might exist around the place. I accept all that. But I also agree, as again I said in my reply to the debate on the second reading, with the view expressed by the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act that those without adequate means of support should obviously be assisted by the state and I would not take Senator Chaney to be dissenting from that. Section 75 (2) (f) does in some measure ensure that a supporting parent would have sufficient moneys by way of social security benefits if the absent spouse is not in a position to pay adequate maintenance. The provision, as it is drafted now and with the minor amendments that we are proposing, would seek also to leave the absent spouse with sufficient income to live on so that he or she would be inclined to pay maintenance that may be ordered and maintain himself and possibly a second family. That is the way it is constructed. The people against whom Senator Durack's amendment really seems to be directed do appear to be, from the way in which it would work in practice, amongst the most vulnerable . The real difficulty arises where payments are made on an intermittent basis; where there is a payment perhaps one week or one fortnight and then a default, then another payment a week or two later followed by another default. In such a situation, which is a commonly recurring one, the problem arises of supporting parents being constantly forced to go back to the Department of Social Security for reassessment and re-establishment of their benefits, with obvious resulting hardship to the supporting parent and children in the interim period. It could be expected that there would be a substantial increase in variation applications , resulting in higher orders being sought. There would be an incentive for respondents to approach the Court and legal aid offices as soon as they could indicate any change in their circumstances. Moreover, we have difficulty with this proposal in that it is to a considerable extent merely speculative. It has not been demonstrated in anything that has been said-one would imagine that at least Senator Chaney, given his previous position, would have some resources available to him to make this point-that significant savings to the Government would result or, from the other point of view, that benefits such as the preservation of stable marriages would ensue. On the evidence available at the moment there is a minimal obvious benefit but a very evident disbenefit in terms of financial difficulties and additional emotional stress. The prospect of having before the courts more recurring conflicts over these matters is not a particularly happy one. Finally-this really is a summary of what I want to say-to drive people to rely more on maintenance payments when it is generally acknowledged that there is just no effective maintenance enforcement and collection system presently operating in Australia would, from our point of view, be premature and, in many respects, cruel. I have set up an inquiry into the establishment of a national maintenance enforcement and collection system. That inquiry is very visibly working away at the moment and I hope that it will be able to produce some fruits in the early part of next year. Until then I believe that it is quite premature to reconstruct the section to produce the kinds of results that are being sought by Senators Chaney and Durack, although this is obviously a matter to which further attention will have to be paid closely at a later time when hopefully that enforcement system will be in place. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(12.12) — There is weighty evidence to support the proposal advanced by Senator Durack and Senator Chaney. The weighty evidence is in the cost to the taxpayer of the current provisions of the Family Law Act. I leave aside for the moment the detailed costs and problems that are experienced between the parties involved. Let us examine the cost of the whole family law administration system. These are not total costs. They are confined simply to the operation of family law administration which, in 1981-82, cost $21,977,700. Legal aid in family law matters cost $22,295,319, for a total cost of over $45m to the taxpayer. Those figures represent only one aspect of family law. I turn now to the cost of the provision in the legislation which at the moment requires the Court to take into account certain matters, including the eligibility of either party for a pension, allowance or benefit, et cetera. I will give the figures from the Department of Social Security on what has happened since 1975. The majority of women receiving a widow's pension are not widows in the normal sense of the term. The amount spent on widows pensions in 1981-I do not have the 1982 figure-was $668.3m. To most people widows are women whose husbands have died. In fact, that is not so. Women whose husbands have died and who are receiving a widow's pension are in the minority. There were 73, 140 such widows. The number of divorcees and deserted wives who obtained widows pensions in 1981 totalled more than 100,000. That represents since 1975 an increase of 162 per cent in divorcees receiving a widow's pension and of 32 per cent in deserted wives receiving a widow's pension. That is not the end of the story. Let us look at the supporting parent benefit. By far the largest number of persons receiving the supporting parent benefit are separated wives and de facto wives. In 1981 separated wives totalled 53,152 and de facto wives 12,913. The increases in their numbers since 1975 have been 267 per cent and 208 per cent respectively. The figures for males who received the supporting parent benefit are smaller. The number of widowers amounted to only 816. There were 906 male divorcees and 2,184 separated husbands. In stark statistical terms, that shows the enormously burdensome cost of divorce in Australia and, indeed, of the legislation, which requires the Court to take into account the eligibility of either party for a pension, et cetera. Surely that is a matter of great concern to all of us. I am heartened by the fact that the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has indicated that there is to be an investigation-I presume a good deal of priority has been given to it-of the question of maintenance. But I believe that Senator Durack's amendment would enable the Court to review what it is doing in this regard. It is all very well for the judges or the registrars or anybody else to tell us what to do. Let us tell them what to do. We are responsible for paying them. Senator Gareth Evans —The taxpayers, not us. Senator HARRADINE —That is right. We are responsible for passing the legislation . We are responsible for passing budgetary legislation relating to supporting parents benefits and widows pensions. It is a matter of real concern among the community that there is such a burden in money terms. I am happy that the Attorney-General is amending section 75 to take into account the eligibility of either party for a pension, allowance or benefit. I am pleased that the Attorney -General has sought to amend section 75 so that the Court can take into account the following matters: The eligibility of either party for a pension, allowance or benefit under- any law of the Commonwealth, of a State or Territory or of another country; or any superannuation fund or scheme, whether the fund or scheme was established, or operates, within or outside Australia, and the rate of any such pension, allowance or benefit being paid to either party; I think that is important, particularly for those for whom I have been most concerned during the consideration of this matter, that is, the deserted wives, those who are deserted and whose husbands then make application for divorce. However, I see that this provision is re-included by Senator Durack's amendment, and I believe that that amendment deserves support. The Attorney-General said that, even if Senator Durack's amendment is adopted, the Court can take into account any fact or circumstance which, in the opinion of the Court, the justice of the case requires to be taken into account. That is dealt with in sub-section (2)(O). What is wrong with adopting Senator Durack's proposal if the Court has an overall responsibility to take into account any fact or circumstance in accordance with section 75 (2)(O)? Senator Gareth Evans —It would create confusion and uncertainty in the people you represent, like the old Act. Senator HARRADINE —No, not at all. The Court, fairly and squarely, then would have to justify what is being done at present; that is, a fix-up, very often, between the parties, having regard to what the taxpayer can pay for the actions of these parties. It comes down to this: People have to face up to the consequences of their actions. The consequences of their actions should not be visited upon the community as a whole. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(12.23) —The longer this debate goes on the more confused I get. I am not quite sure what is to be achieved by the Durack-Chaney amendment. The main emphasis in the report of the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act was that there ought to be reliance upon private responsibilities by liable parties to a maintenance order. The Committee sought to develop a scheme, which has not yet been adopted-in fact we have not seen an alternative to it-whereby the Social Services Act would be amended and there would be a method whereby the Department of Social Security could go ahead and enforce the payment of maintenance. Therefore maintenance orders would be effective instead of being, as is the case at the moment, a terrible joke. Many women who have obtained orders have to go back to the Department because the husband does not pay. The husband may pay the maintenance for a while so the wife loses the pension, and the matter goes backwards and forwards. What is not at all clear to me is what is to be achieved if the amendment is adopted. I think it is acknowledged that this is only part of the problem. On one reading one could say that it excluded Commonwealth pensions, although the amendment of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) makes it very clear that it does not. A very similar amendment was recommended by the Joint Committee which is recorded at page 79 of its report. Recommendation No. 25 states: The Committee recommends that section 75 (2) (f) be amended to read: The eligibility of either party for a pension, allowance or benefit under any superannuation fund or scheme, or the rate of any such pension, allowance or benefit being paid to either party. That is very much the same as the Durack-Chaney amendment except that their amendment relates to operations within or outside Australia. In the note to the recommendation the Committee states: It should be noted that section 75 (2) (f) would then apply to situations where a pension is actually being received whether from social security, superannuation or other sources. I do not read the three things together. Eligibility for a pension is one thing, an allowance is another, and a benefit under any superannuation fund or scheme is a separate entitlement. If I have not misunderstood the Attorney-General, he said that this would be dealt with anyway under the catch-all clause at the end which allows for any other fact or circumstance to be taken into account. Those phrases have posed difficulties over the years because judges have tended to say : 'No, it does not include such and such'. Quite apart from needing to rely on that, I cannot see why the Court would not take into account social security pension entitlements, as it has in the past. Therefore, I am at a loss to see what the amendment that has been proposed by Senator Durack and Senator Chaney would do. Clearly, the situation is unsatisfactory in many respects. People are not meeting their own responsibilities, and a scheme must be found whereby they do so, as far as possible. On the other hand, as has been pointed out to me very often by judges and others who are practising and operating in the social welfare field, undoubtedly people seeking maintenance very often cannot support themselves. There is a lack of money; very often they are in the poverty section of the community. Often women are placed in a situation in which there is not enough money to go around. Perhaps the husband is supporting a new family as well as his old family. Therefore, over the years judges have compromised to an extent by making orders for lower rates of maintenance which are more likely to be paid than if a large amount were awarded to a husband who then disappeared to Western Australia, northern Queensland, or those remote parts. Senator Chaney —Northern Victoria. Senator MISSEN —It is not far enough, Senator. Wherever the husband may disappear to, the Commonwealth is left carrying the lot. There is no black and white situation here. I am not so sure that the judges have not, over the years, in a practical sense, operated fairly effectively in making moderate orders that might be met and taking into account that there will be a Commonwealth contribution. It is a contribution because the children of the marriage have to be educated and looked after. If they are not the Commonwealth will have a very large social responsibility later, probably for a whole generation. It is all right to talk about the cost of social security. In order of social security costs we are somewhere in the medium area-under half-in the developed world. The other night I read some figures which indicated that, far from being highly paid in terms of social security, Australia is rather on the low side compared with the rest of the world. This will increase because of the aging of our population, the number of children, and the steady rise in the Western world of broken homes and marital breakdown. These factors will cause an increase in costs in Australia, but I believe that is a cost the community ought to bear. I do not think the amendment does more than fiddle around with the problem. I do not think it answers it. I may have misunderstood the meaning of it but, if so, it looks as if the Joint Committee also misunderstood the meaning because it took a different view. I am not sure it is worth while putting in the amendment proposed by Senators Durack and Chaney because I do not think it will achieve the purpose they are seeking. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.30) — Two separate groups of people-they are usually wives, as we have all readily acknowledged-are involved in this matter. There is that group of women whose husbands disappear at the drop of a hat as soon as it is suggested that they might make some payment. Social security benefits should be paid to those women, as they are at the moment, until maintenance can be collected. But there is another group of women who object very strongly to the fact that, although they know their husbands have the finance to pay for the education and support of their children and the maintenance of the family as a whole, those husbands are able, because the judges take eligibility for the deserted wives pension into account, to slip their responsibilities altogether. Those wives object very strongly to the fact that they are forced to accept a pension under these circumstances. Many of them complain to me about this matter . They say that they are well aware of their husbands' financial situations. In many cases the husband is quite capable of paying for the upkeep of the children yet, because the court takes into consideration eligibility of the wife for the pension, she is forced to accept it. I do not believe that there is any difficulty such as the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) has indicated-he is quite willing to review the matter eventually-that in the interim period confusion would be created. Some husbands duck their responsibilities deliberately by going off somewhere so that they are not able to be contacted. The maintenance of their wives becomes the responsibility of the Department of Social Security. I hope that the Attorney will look at those two different sections of people. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(12.32) —I re-enter the debate to comment on a couple of matters which have been raised. Senator Missen asked what my amendment achieves. It appears to me that at a minimum the amendment achieves the removal from the Family Law Act of the clear statement that as the law now stands the first recourse in the circumstances of a broken marriage is to the taxpayer. Everyone agrees-there has been no difference in the debate between the view put by Senator Gareth Evans and the views I have expressed-about the obligations of the state to maintain people who are without income. That is not the argument. The question is where one primarily looks. To my mind the Act as it stands at present is clear in that it lays down a primary or an existing universal entitlement to look to the Department of Social Security first. I think that is undesirable in principle. Senator Gareth Evans —It is only one amongst a number of criteria. Senator CHANEY —It is one. But I think the entitlement to assistance from the state ought to remain independent. It should not be taken into account before the ability of the parties themselves to contribute is determined. I quite understand the points made by the Attorney-General in his comments about leaving the absent spouse enough to live on and so on, but I think that many people are concerned about the sorts of figures Senator Harradine mentioned in the Committee debate. Perhaps we also need to show some concern about the pressures put on people of limited means who are required to pay the taxes to contribute to these pensions. I think a balance should be struck. At the moment the balance is too heavily against the taxpayer. I will give some additional figures taken from the pocket compendium of income security statistics issued by the Department of Social Security. There has been a very large growth in this area of dependency between 1972 and 1982. In June 1972 a total of 92,784 people were receiving the widow's pension, which was the form of pension then available. Of course, it also picked up many deserted and divorced wives. In the 10-year period to 1982, the number of people receiving the widow's pension and supporting parent's benefit increased from 92,784 to 338 ,000. The supporting parent's benefit was a new benefit introduced in 1975, I think. It was extended by the Fraser Government to include supporting fathers as well as supporting mothers. In June 1982 the number of people receiving that benefit was about 124,000. Nine months later that number has increased to 135, 000. There is a continuing increase in the number of people seeking the assistance of the taxpayer through these benefits. Again I say that there is no dispute that benefits should be available where there is no other available income. Of course they should. But the question is whether the availability of those benefits should be taken into account in determining the contribution which is to be made by the party to the dissolved marriage. If we look at the actual amounts involved we see an even more stark change. I do not have constant value dollars; these figures are in dollar terms. In 1971- 72 the Commonwealth paid out $104m in widows pensions. By 1981-82, it was paying out $1,323m. Therefore, by the financial year 1981-82, $1.3 billion was being expended in widows pensions and supporting parents benefit. This is an area of massive increase. It is an increase of over $1,200m in a 10-year period. That simply accentuates the reason why I think we should be cautious about the extent to which we allow what in the past have been private obligations to be transferred to the public sector, in particular, to the Department of Social Security. However, I agree with the Attorney-General that there are problems. There are the problems of intermittent payments. That certainly highlights the need for work to be done such as the Attorney has under way with respect to a maintenance collection agency. Again, there is no difference between the Opposition and the Government or, I am sure, any honourable senators in this place as to the desirability of that sort of reform. I also commend the matter which was under examination during the life of the previous Government and which I have little doubt that the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, will also be monitoring. I refer to the New Zealand experiment where a contribution is required on a statutory basis. Clearly, that sort of rationalisation may be the answer to some of the difficulties which the Attorney has mentioned in his response. I am unable to put before the chamber the level of savings which could be effected out of that $1,300m. Clearly, it would not be the major part that would be saved. It would be a shaving operation , not a massive saving operation. But the Government has shown itself in a sense rather resolute about some of these shaving operations and keeps telling us that we have to bite the bullet on these difficult matters. Again, in this area there are difficulties in the way of making changes but I think those difficulties need to be faced. For the reasons that the Attorney himself has outlined, I believe that the effect would not be catastrophic even in individual cases, because of the wide discretions which are allowed the courts in these matters. I am sure that the courts would administer the slightly more limited discretions which they have in a way which would ensure that in individual cases no harm was done. It would require a higher level of contribution in some cases from the parties to dissolved marriages, principally husbands. I think that would be a thoroughly healthy thing in Australia in 1983. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(12.40) —I rise to support the amendment. It is a matter about which I have corresponded with various Attorneys -General since 1976, with the exception of the present Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). I think that this section should be removed from the Act. The basis upon which maintenance is frequently worked out takes first into account the full benefit a woman can get by way of a pension for herself and her children. The agreement is then fiddled so that the amount paid by way of maintenance fits in with the full pension requirements. I think this is an abuse of the system. It probably has been going on to quite a large extent. It was something that had to follow, given the wording in the legislation that the amount available under social security should be taken into account. The maintenance agreements that were drawn up and registered took that into account. However, frequently payments additional to that were made to ensure that the full pension was paid. I think that this is a substantial area of abuse and we are not seeing, as the Government frequently tells us is the case, the social security dollar going to those most in need. Certainly other matters such as the collection of maintenance and the enforcement of maintenance orders need to be attended to. I think it is common knowledge that under the Act anyone who did not want to pay maintenance did not really have to and there was no way of seeing that maintenance was paid. My personal view is that parents should be primarily responsible for the support of their children. Of course assistance should be given through the social security system if the parents, between them, do not have adequate resources to look after their children. However, I think we have the matter completely the wrong way around when we say that the first thing that we should consider in assessing maintenance is the amount to be taken into account under social security. The proposal to make more specific the requirement that entitlements under superannuation funds should be taken into account when assessing maintenance is long overdue. To some extent this can be done and it has been done. But I think this requirement needs to be made clearer so that the partner who received less during the marriage because of money being paid into a superannuation fund can adequately share that entitlement if the marriage breaks down. I support the amendment. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(12.43) —The Government reiterates its position of opposition to this amendment, notwithstanding all the arguments that have been put. Firstly, it will not guarantee the result which Senator Durack and Senator Chaney want it to guarantee or ensure. Secondly, to the extent that it will do anything, it will simply create confusion in practice and not alter substantially what in fact occurs, only the circumstances in which it occurs. Thirdly, to the extent that there is some principled or rational foundation for the trust lying behind the arguments of Senator Durack and Senator Chaney, that is being taken into account by the Government in the context of its review of maintenance collection and enforcement. It is very likely that we will bring down appropriate statutory solutions to this whole problem in the latter part of next year when that exercise is completed. So, at worst it is a little wrong headed at this stage; at best it is a premature amendment and I would urge that it be rejected accordingly. Question put: That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Durack's amendment) be left out . The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 33 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 10 —— Archer, B. R. Lajovic, M. E. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lewis, A. W. R. Boswell, R. L. D. MacGibbon, D. J. Carrick, Sir John Messner, A. J. Chaney, F. M. Rae, PeterCrichton-Browne, N. A. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Durack, P. D. Scott, D. B. Guilfoyle, Dame Margaret Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Townley, M. Harradine, B. Walters, M. S. Jessop, D. S. Watson, J. O. W. Kilgariff, B. F. 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. Martin, K. J. Cook, P. F. S. Mason, C. V. J. Crowley, R. A. Primmer, C. G. Elstob, R. C. Ray, RobertEvans, Gareth Reynolds, M. Evans, Jack Richardson, G. F. Foreman, D. J. Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Georges, G. Ryan, S. M. Gietzelt, A. T. Sibraa, K. W. Giles, P. J. Tate, M. C. Grimes, D. J. Walsh, P. A. Haines, J. Question so resolved in the negative. Amendment negatived. Progress reported. Debate resumed from 7 September 1983, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a first time. Senator JONES(Queensland)(12.50) —I want to take this opportunity on the first reading of the Dividend Recoupment Tax Bill 1983 to talk about foreign ownership and foreign investment throughout Australia, particularly in Queensland. I think that most people in Australia would be somewhat shocked at the figures that are available from the Foreign Investment Review Board in relation to the number of rural properties held in Australia by foreign companies. A cursory look at the figures shows that foreign ownership has controlled 498 rural properties since April 1976. It does appear that a gross amount of money has been involved and that a large number of rural properties are being bought, particularly in Queensland and a number of other States. Let us examine the areas of the 498 rural properties that are held in Australia . If one were to compare that area with the area of some other countries one would find that the area of the 498 rural properties is larger than the area of Greece. In Australia 13.6 million hectares are controlled by foreign ownership, which is four times the size of Holland. With that sort of investment coming into the country I think it is fairly reasonable to expect that State governments which make recommendations to the Federal Government in relation to allowing foreign investment into Australia prior to the Foreign Investment Review Board making a decision should make more reasonable attempts to put before the FIRB the facts and figures. This would allow a reasonable amount of investment in Australia rather than the overwhelming amount which we have at the moment. Problems arise in Queensland and New South Wales. In Queensland alone the area covered by rural investment is larger than the size of Belgium. In New South Wales the area held by foreign ownership is two and a half times the size of Luxembourg. It seems to me that the sorts of investments and secret deals that are taking place make it very difficult for the FIRB to follow through the investments in the States and to ascertain where investments are taking place. In some cases it is very difficult for the FIRB to know the identity of the company involved. We find that in some States nominee companies have been set up. The nominee companies are making investments for foreign owners. This information is not available to the Australian authorities when they examine the investments taking place in various States. I think that the lack of information about this investment is shown fairly clearly in an answer given by the former Treasurer, Mr Howard, to a question. On 18 August 1982 the former Treasurer refused to answer a question I placed on notice in the Senate requesting details of the names of all foreigners who had invested in Australian rural land in the previous two years and the locations and descriptions of those properties. The then Treasurer refused to give that information. I feel that the people of Australia have a right to know that information. They should be aware of the number of investments that have taken place and what countries are making major investments in Australia. The Treasurer, in his reply, went on to say that publication of the names of the parties and descriptions of the properties would not be considered appropriate. I believe that the people throughout Australia think that it is appropriate that they should know who is investing in Australia and in what countries the companies are being formed to take over rural land throughout Australia. In Queensland, one can look at the fact that the Premier, Mr Bjelke-Petersen, has continually refused to set up a register of foreign-owned land in that State . While he has made the statement on a number of occasions that it would be a fairly simple matter to set up a register of foreign-owned companies, he has continually refused to make that information available to the electors or to the public of Queensland. I believe that after the election on 22 October Queensland will have a government in power which will in no way refuse to bring about a register of foreign-owned land so that the people of Queensland, if not the rest of Australia, will be aware of the investments that are taking place. Senator Crichton-Browne —Do you reckon the Premier will change his mind? Senator JONES —I do not think that the Premier will be there after 22 October. It is all right for members of the Liberal Party to interject. But if one looks at the problems faced by the Liberal Party in Queensland one finds that it is obvious that the Australian Labor Party will win the election and that Keith Wright will be the new Premier of Queensland. The other point I would like to make is that the Federal Government has laid down a number of guidelines in relation to foreign investment in Australia. The guidelines set down by the previous Government on foreign investment and rural lands adopted in March last year depend heavily on the advice from State governments. I have said previously that I do not believe that in some cases the State governments, particularly the Government of Queensland, are giving correct information or advice to the Federal Government to allow it to make a correct decision in relation to investment taking place in Australia. The Government relies fairly heavily on advice from the State governments in determining whether or not a proposal for the acquisition of land would lead to a significant economic benefit. The question I pose at this stage is: Who gets the economic benefit? Is it Australia , Queensland or a foreign investment company? I go a little further and examine what the former Treasurer, Mr Howard-the discredited former Treasurer as has been so aptly put by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) on occasions-said in answer to a further question asked in the Senate. He said that it was quite possible that some foreign interests may be acquiring small rural holdings which are no longer operational farms and which are exempt from examination under the Foreign Takeovers Act or the foreign investment policy and that the Government did not believe it would be feasible for it to monitor such minor land acquisitions. That in itself is a fairly reasonable statement. But when one looks at what is happening one finds that in some electorates, particularly in the electorate of Barambah in Queensland-of course, I think it goes without saying that it is in the electorate of the Premier of Queensland-a number of rural holdings have been taken up by Japanese companies. Although those rural holdings are not large enough at this stage for an application to be placed before the FIRB, if they were to become a conglomerate then we would find that those Japanese companies would have a very large holding in the electorate represented by the Premier of Queensland. The Japanese companies would have a substantial say in what happens to the rural community and the rural production in that area. If there is a chance that those sorts of companies could come together, even though the holding is small, I believe it should be looked at by the FIRB. I believe that the State government should make some recommendations in relation to those companies seeking small holdings side by side in a particular State. I go a little further and state that the one thing we need to look at is what is happening in Queensland in relation to holdings. We need to look at what is happening in some of the other States. The only other example I give is the situation as it applies to the Northern Territory. I would like to give an example of what is happening in that area. The Sabah Government controls Monte Jinni Station which is 9,000 square kilometres. It is a pastoral lease. In Queensland, Burenda, a 22,417 hectare sheep stud at Augathella-it is in central Queensland very close to Charleville-is held by foreign ownership. A 328 hectare cattle grazing property is held by foreign ownership in the Premier's electorate of Barambah. The same Japanese company that owns the 328 hectare property also owns two other rural properties in that electorate. They are the properties that I am talking about that are reasonably close together. They could be easily put together, easily made into a large holding and could return a fairly strong economic profit to the company that holds those three properties. It also could have a very detrimental effect on the people who control the rural community within that area. I point out some further examples in relation to Queensland. I am pointing out only some of these examples because of the Premier's lack of interest in what is happening in his State. I refer to a property called Leslie near Warwick. That property has been held by Australian families for 100 years. It is now held by a Japanese company, having been bought for $1.3m. It was offered to Australian companies and the claim was that no Australian company would take it over. We find in Queensland that so much rural land has been taken over by foreign investment that the rural community is being controlled by overseas companies, particularly Japanese companies. Another famous investment in Queensland, about which I do not think one need say a great deal, is the Iwasaki project at Yeppoon. An agreement was made with the State Government but we find that just a few months ago the Premier, when the Parliament was in recess, made a statement that because Iwasaki could not meet the terms of the agreement made with his Government, the Government would change the agreement so that Iwasaki could meet the time schedule laid down. JCL Investment Pty Ltd, a South African company, has gained approval from the Federal Government to establish a hypermarket at Aspley, an outer suburb of Brisbane. Whilst the Foreign Investment Review Board approved the investment by JCL Investment Pty Ltd, I do not really believe that the Premier of Queensland or the State Government really pointed out to the FIRB the problems that would be faced by small businesses in the Aspley community. I do not think I am alone in saying this. I believe a Liberal member of the State Parliament has said on a number of occasions that the small businesses in the Aspley area will find that they will not be able to compete with a hypermarket development in that area. It should be said that hypermarkets will make supermarkets look like ice cream shops on suburban corners. That is how large hypermarkets are. They will take away any opportunity that small business has in the Aspley area to flourish or take in some of the custom from that area. Small business will be strangled by the development of the hypermarket. We can go a little further and look at the attempted investment in the Jackson to Moonie oil pipeline. We all know that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) said that that project should not be proceeded with because of the large amount of foreign investment involved. We find that the Premier made a statement to the Press attacking the Federal Treasurer because he stopped the investment by the Koreans in that pipeline. Senator MacGibbon —The Minister for No Development he called him, didn't he? Senator JONES —I think he called him even worse than that, but we will come back to that in a moment. One has to understand that the Treasurer said that an Australian firm-Australian firms were available-should put up at least 50 per cent of the capital to support the development of that pipeline. It was that sort of protection that the Treasurer was talking about, which would have prevented the giving away of our economic say in the way the Premier was prepared to do. I believe we should look in some detail at some of the investments I talked about before. I do not think I need to deal in any more detail with relation to the Northern Territory but I think it is worth while at this stage pointing to an interview on Countrywide. The program was screened on 10 November 1982 and the topic was that the Sabah Government owns 9,000 square kilometres of cattle stations in Northern Territory, where it breeds beef for live export to Sabah and plans to set up an abattoir in an all-foreign owned operation. In relation to the development undertaken by that enterprise, one of the correspondents had this to say: This is the Northern Territory and these cattle are on their way to Malaysia. Tonight they'll be trucked to the port of Wyndham. Tomorrow they'll be on their way to the oil rich Malaysian state of Sabah. The ship that carried the cattle is also owned by the Sabah Government. The management and labour input on these cattle is Australian. The profit and full ownership is Malaysian. The hay, for eight days at sea for 700 cattle, is grown on one of Sabah's Australian cattle stations. So they're now almost independent. They've got the cattle, the transport ship, the feed, and most of all, 9,000 square kilometres of Australia' s top end. The jewel of Sabah's offshore kingdom is Camfield, widely regarded as one of the best places to raise cattle in the Northern Territory. It was purchased five years ago and at the time Australian meat workers welcomed with some trepidation a company that would spend money on improving the place and thereby boosting the annual turnoff. And spend money they have, on new bores, kilometres and kilometres of fences, and three sets of cattle yards, each capable of handling over 10,000 head. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT Senator Sibraa)-Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(1.05) —I wish to take this opportunity to talk about the Australian National Animal Health Laboratory at Geelong, which has come up for some discussion in the community over the last year or so. I want to make particular reference to the decision of the Federal Government, or the Australian Labor Party, to mothball this fine facility or to turn it over probably to the Department of Primary Industry. The existence and functioning of this laboratory is of vital concern to rural Australia. My concern as a grazier, as a Queenslander from the major beef exporting State, and as an Australian, whose country earns at least $1.4 billion a year from beef and mutton alone, cannot be over-emphasised. It is a tragedy that this great facility has become the object of an emotional argument-an argument about the place of foot and mouth disease and foot and mouth disease virus in Australia. Dealing with that disease is not the sole purpose of the animal health laboratory at Geelong. It has many functions quite apart from research into foot and mouth disease virus. It is concerned with the diagnosis and control of all exotic animal diseases in Australia. I can understand some of the fears in the community about it but they arise from a lack of knowledge as to what this facility should do. It is a diagnostic and research facility. In the facility at Geelong we have the finest such establishment in the world. What we need to do now that we have the hardware is train the staff and prove up the procedures. I come back to the central point. The purpose of this laboratory is to research exotic diseases and to develop protection and diagnostic techniques and apply them to the Australian rural industries. There are at least 39 exotic diseases of major significance to the Australian rural community, quite apart from foot and mouth disease, and the control of all 39 is vital to the welfare of the cattle industry, the sheep industry and the pig industry. Some of the more common diseases like rabies, Rift Valley fever and rinderpest need no explanation. We ought to reflect for a little while on rabies because that can be a human disease as well as a disease of animals. Any parent who has looked after children in a rabiatic area, as I have, would know the worry that comes with the possibility of small children playing with animals infected with rabies. Such animals are often sick and so are easily captured by children. The children play with them, pet them, can be bitten and get rabies. Rabies is one of the most dreadful diseases one can have. I forget my pathology on this disease, but a patient probably has 120 days of agony before he dies, and the treatment is almost as bad as the painful death. It is a horrible disease. Australia has the largest wild pig and fox population in the world. The vectors in which rabies could live and multiply pose problems that are probably worse for Australia than for any other country. The history of the Animal Health Laboratory goes back 20 years. The Joint Parliamentary Committee on Public Works approved the construction of this facility in 1974 and no voice in opposition was ever raised by the scientific or farming communities. We have proceeded with the construction of this facility; we have built a building at a cost so far of about $155m. It is an engineering masterpiece; there is no other building in the world like it. Its design has come from first principles. It is as complex as an oil refinery but, unlike an oil refinery where every design is derived from an earlier design and is different only in detail, the complexity of this engineering masterpiece has had to be thought out from first principles. I have undiminished pride, as should all Australians, in the design and construction team that built that building. It will hold 120 large animals and sterilise all their excreta, even their expired air. It is absolutely safe biologically from any movement of viral or other bacterial contaminants out into the outside world. In passing might I say that since we have put together a design team which has capabilities that no other nation in the world has, the Government should consider, in the way it did with the Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Authority, making that design and engineering team available on a consultancy basis to interested nations such as Japan and a few others to build similar facilities. This is the most sophisticated facility in the world. I have seen only one other viral research laboratory, the English laboratory at Pirbright, which I visited last month. It bears no comparison at all with the Australian facility. Having had some training as a microbiologist, I understand the fears that the lay community has about dangerous and infectious diseases. It must be emphasised that those dangers can be controlled and are entirely manageable. Moving into the human world, for many years in this country we kept smallpox virus to prepare smallpox vaccines. That is a highly pathogenic virus for mankind. Had it escaped and become uncontrollable in the Australian community, a community which was unvaccinated, then there would have been a significant death toll. We were happy to accept that risk, but we are not happy to accept a lesser risk with respect to animal pathogens. The matter has been the subject of some informed inquiry. Regrettably, it has received very little comment, but the Australian Science and Technology Council reported on it in the recent past. I commend the ASTEC report to the Senate because it is a responsible, effective and honest compromise on what is a very difficult problem, difficult because of the emotion that surrounds it. What ASTEC proposed will work and it should be applied. Now that the hardware is built, we need to train up the laboratory staff in the techniques, develop the whole laboratory as a working system, prove that it can be secure, and review the situation by 1987, as ASTEC recommends. I accept that, and I think anyone who knows anything about the situation accepts it. We cannot accept the proposition that the ANAHL be mothballed or turned over to DPI. If it is mothballed it will be lost to the Australian community. If it goes to DPI it will not have the research function which is absolutely vital for its growth and effectiveness. I am astonished that the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) has supported this proposition. The Minister has never visited Geelong, and I find that astonishing. The Minister for Science and Technology has never visited the most important single scientific establishment in the country. I think it is the most expensive single building we have ever built here. I am forced to reflect on the comment by one of the senior members of the Australian scientific establishment that the Minister for Science and Technology knows everything but understands nothing. Also, I notice that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) has never visited Geelong. As far as I am aware, only Senator Chipp and I , of the Federal politicans, have taken the trouble to go down there and see it since it has been completed. The decision that has been taken to mothball ANAHL is a decision that is of fundamental importance to Australia, yet it was taken without reference to, discussion with, or in consultation with any of the interested parties in the Australian community. It is very important to the security of Australian rural exports. It is very important from a research point of view for the development of new reagents, new diagnostic techniques and new vaccines. When I talk about vaccines in the animal world I am not talking in terms of a few thousand vaccines that can be produced every year. The market extends to hundreds of millions of doses annually. The benefits from the production of those vaccines for the laboratory that is first into the field, both in direct production and in royalty payments, are enormous. We are looking not only at animal research but also at research that has an application frequently to human health problems . I find it astonishing that a Minister who makes so much play of the need to develop a scientific base for Australian industry should turn his back on something that provides an opportunity to develop the real expertise we have in this field. The criticism of ANAHL turns on security, and that is related to two factors, the mechanical security of the building and the human factor. Mechanically, Geelong is a generation beyond any other facility in the world. All other facilities, such as Pirbright and Plum Island in the United States of America, had their origins in the 1920s or the 1930s or the 1940s. They were built at a time when knowledge was nowhere near as complete as it is at present, and I will instance one example. It was not known, for example, that viral transmission could take place through water vapour contamination or droplet contamination through the expired air from animals and travel not for hundreds of yards but for 20 or 30 miles, as is known today. Of course, at Geelong the respired air from the animals is completely sterilised before it is exhausted to the atmosphere. I have been to Pirbright, as I said earlier. The wonder is, when you see those buildings, not that it had outbreaks-one of the criticisms of Geelong is that outbreaks of infectious or exotic diseases have taken place from research facilities, and that is true with the older ones-but that there were not more of them. We can guarantee that the mechanical side of Geelong is such that we can control the escape of micro-organisms from that facility. The human factor is another matter, but I am prepared to defend the professional pride and training of the staff who work there. There is no defence at all against people who have a grudge against society and who wish to create damage. The opportunities they have at Geelong are no different from those available to someone walking into a powerhouse of a major city and sabotaging that powerhouse and causing a large death toll, with people dying in hospitals and situations like that. The principal criticism stems really from the academic world. It is a very vicious, incestuous academic fight that is at the heart of the ANAHL dispute. It arises principally from a few people at the Australian National University. They are not concerned with the money that went into ANAHL. They are concerned about the maintenance grant of $10m or $12m that would go to ANAHL each year if it were running at full blast. They think that they could use that money better. They have stirred up the rural community with this campaign of fear. They have created also divisions within the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. In the past I have spoken of the need for us to discuss scientific and technical matters in this Parliament, and I have deplored the total absence of debate on it. Australia's future turns on the application of science and technology to the community, not on arguments by lawyers like Senator Button, who has just come into this chamber. This week the Senate has been debating the Family Law Amendment Bill, and the Freedom of Information Bill will be coming on for debate. I do not doubt the importance of those from a human interest point of view. The plea I make is that it is just as important for human beings to discuss the place of science in this community. Long ago I foresaw the need for this Parliament to cope with scientific matters. In conclusion, I quote from a speech by Dr Wild, the head of CSIRO. In an address he gave recently he said: All this brings me to a larger consideration. As we head further into the 80s we as a nation will be confronted with an ever-increasing number of technically complex issues of great importance and interest to the general public. Experience overseas, particularly in the U.S. and Europe indicates that we can only expect these debates to become more heated, confusing and divisive as time goes on. The opportunities that will be presented by these debates for mischief- making by irresponsible individuals posing as experts can only be guessed at. It is of the utmost importance, therefore, that we devise ways of conducting these debates which will minimize these opportunities, and maximize informed discussion. In particular, scientists will need to devote much more attention to translating technical complexities into language understood by the wider community to promote informed public debate. I completely concur with those sentiments. Senator COLSTON(Queensland)(1.20) -The matter I raise this afternoon might seem a rather small and insignificant one. I acknowledge that fact, but even though it might be small and insignificant to some people it is of significance to others in the community. I will not be speaking at length but I want to make a few remarks about what I term 'junk mail'. By 'junk mail' I refer to unsolicited articles, almost invariably advertising articles which are distributed to private letterboxes. These items can be such things as brochures indicating specials for the local supermarket, local 'free' newspapers, advertisements for keep fit classes, political propaganda-probably read by only those who have some political bias anyway-department store catalogues and so on. Over the past few months, I have been criticised because I referred to this material at one stage as 'junk mail, the bane of all householders'. Perhaps I was too sweeping in my comments, to say that this material is the bane of all householders. But I am by no means overstating the case to suggest that it is, at least, the bane of many householders. I have seen many suburban letterboxes on Monday mornings which are so crammed with unsolicited material which has been delivered over the weekend that the normal delivery of Australia Post mail has been almost impossible. I am mindful of the employment generated by this type of advertising. It would not be unfair to say that some of those who distribute the material are underpaid for doing so. Nevertheless, to put a total ban on this type of mail would be detrimental to the employment prospects of a large number of people and, partly for this reason, I have never suggested a total ban. When I spoke about this matter earlier this year I referred to a report which had been mentioned to me by the Minister for Communications, Mr Duffy. This report suggests that the Postal Services Act could be amended to provide that it be an offence for anyone other than Australia Post to place material into letterboxes marked 'For Postal Articles only'. This suggestion drew considerable criticism from some firms which use this type of advertising. One firm forwarded to me a copy of a letter which it had written to Mr Duffy on this matter. In this letter it is claimed that this industry provides work for about 12,000 workers throughout Australia in distributing the material. As well as that, it was claimed, thousands of people are employed in printing the material. I have no reason to doubt these figures and a level of employment of this magnitude must not be taken lightly. The letter to which I have referred said, in part: Sir, we appreciate a vocal minority are against this form of advertising, but there are steps they can take to prevent this material going into their letterboxes, namely by placing a simple notice on their letterbox prohibiting delivery. I do not know whether it is a vocal minority only which objects to this form of advertising. It may be that there is a silent majority which finds it annoying. Nevertheless, I agree with the step suggested by the writers of the letter for preventing the material being placed in letterboxes. The suggestion was to place a simple notice on a letterbox prohibiting delivery. But unless there is legislation to give backing to such a notice, it could well prove to be as useless as a 'beware of the dog' sign backed up by a 20-year-old persian cat. I therefore hold that the suggestion of a suitable amendment to the Postal Services Act should be pursued. In this way employees, advertisers and householders who want this type of material delivered and those who do not want it can all be accommodated. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(1.24) —I take the opportunity of this first reading debate on the Dividend Recoupment Tax Bill 1983 to discuss organised crime and police corruption. I make the remark at the beginning of my speech that I believe most policemen in Australia are highly dedicated and courageous young men and women who, when considering the risks that they sometimes have to take, are grossly underpaid. I pay a tribute to the majority of police in Australia. My remarks today are directed to those despicable creatures-they are in the minority-who are not honest, who wear the uniform and who prostitute democracy. In passing may I say that I have a particular regard for the Victorian Police Force as such and its most distinguished Commissioner, Mr Miller, who I believe is a magnificent person and officer, and also the present Chief Commissioner of Police in New South Wales, Mr Cec Abbott, with whom I formed a close relationship when I was Minister for Customs. The Street Royal Commission cleared the Premier of New South Wales of the charge, raised publicly in a program of the then Australian Broadcasting Commission, that he had attempted to influence the administration of justice in New South Wales in the case against Mr Kevin Humphreys. However, Mr Justice Street did not clear the law enforcement agencies of New South Wales. He found that the former Chief Stipendiary Magistrate, Mr Farquhar, 'did influence the outcome of the committal proceedings'-that is, that he caused the Stipendiary Magistrate, Mr Jones, to make a finding which he would not have made but for Mr Farquhar's intervention. This finding raises many questions about the administration of justice in New South Wales which go far beyond Mr Jones's specific conduct of the case and which were not caught by the narrow terms of reference of the Street Commission. I am dwelling on corruption in the New South Wales Police Force and on the administration of justice because New South Wales is where most of the organised crime in Australia is centred. It is a major source of heroin importation, illegal gambling, vice and those things that make up the $700m a year profits that are going to organised crime in this country. If there is something wrong with the Police Force or the courts in New South Wales, it is not just a State matter, it is a national matter which can affect all Australians. One wonders why it took six years for the matter to be dealt with when, according to the evidence before Mr Justice Street, at least seven stipendiary magistrates knew about it as early as 1977 and the Public Service Board as early as 1978. One wonders about the extent to which police inquiries were interfered with and which senior police, if any, provided assistance to Mr Humphreys in 1977 and 1978. These matters were not brought out at the Royal Commission. Extraordinarily, some of those questions were not even asked. Most importantly, one wonders why the restrictive terms of reference were not widened-as it is, both Mr Wran and Mr Justice Street say they expected the other to do so if it became necessary. The necessity to inquire into the administration of the law in New South Wales in general, and police corruption in particular, may be judged by the fact that this is not the first time queries have arisen about law enforcement in New South Wales. I cite some cases that are on the public record that scream out for answers. I refer to the Shirley Brifman affair. In June 1971 Shirley Brifman named the then head of the New South Wales Special Breaking Squad, Fred Krahe, as the man to whom she had paid $100 per week protection money for several years. In a record of interview totalling 60 pages, Brifman alleged that Krahe and 33 other detectives, also named, had received stolen goods, organised bank robberies, distributed counterfeit money, fixed court cases and framed criminals. I am not talking about Chicago, Mr Deputy President, I am talking about Sydney, New South Wales. An investigation was commenced but before it produced any results, Brifman was found dead in Brisbane. At the request of Queensland Police, no coroner's inquest was held. Police treated it as suicide-a most incredible situation. Further allegations about Krahe's involvement in a car stealing racket were made but as charges were being prepared Krahe was allowed to retire as medicaly unfit with a police pension. He was given a private investigator's licence which he retained until his death in 1981 and used to carry out many controversial assignments including work for the developers of Victoria Street, Kings Cross, and an inquiry for the Nugan fruit company. On some of his work he is reported to have worked in close co-operation with the New South Wales police. I turn now to the Bartons' case. Investigations into the corporate activities of the Bartons began in 1973 and several million dollars and seven years later showed a nil result when most of the fraud and conspiracy charges were dropped by the then Attorney-General, Mr Frank Walker, acting on the advice of the Crown Solicitor. Mr Gruzman, the Barton's former legal adviser, had charged that Mr Walker and Mr Wran had obstructed Mr Gruzman's investigations into some of the complex corporate dealings involved. Mr Gruzman withdrew these allegations when he was granted $100,000 costs by the Crown. On the same day, the Crown withdrew eight outstanding charges of false swearing against Mr Gruzman. This is not Chicago I am referring to, but Sydney, New South Wales. I refer next to the Merv Wood case. Mr Merv Wood was appointed New South Wales Police Commissioner in 1976. Following numerous allegations of unchecked illegal gambling and apparent direct contact between Mr Wood and gambling identities, a dossier on police corruption was released by the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr Mason, and Mr Wood announced his resignation. According to Mr Wran, a police inquiry into the dossier disclosed only one serious allegation about events, which were unspecified, which took place before the shooting of two women who worked for one of the illegal casinos. To this date, no action has been taken about that dossier or the allegations. The next matter is the matter of Roy Cessna, one involving the importation of cannabis valued at $1.5m. This case was heard as a summary matter in the magistrates court after the valuation figure had been changed to 'some value'. In the New South Wales Parliament charges were made that this alteration took place at the behest of the then Police Commissioner, Mr Merv Wood. The case was heard before-guess who-Mr Murray Farquhar. It was his last case. He sentenced one of the two defendants to 18 months gaol, with a non-parole period of eight months, and released the other on a bond. I repeat, this did not happen in Chicago but in Sydney, New South Wales. I turn now to the alleged $5,000 per week gambling bribe. In October 1981 the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr John Mason, alleged that he had been offered $ 5,000 per week to do nothing about illegal gambling in New South Wales. A year later the independent member of Parliament for the South Coast, Mr John Hatton, alleged that the offer had been made by a former Liberal member of parliament, Mr Tim Walker. To my knowledge, and to the knowledge of newspapers, to this date , no action at all has been taken to investigate this allegation. I refer now to the matter of compensation for Abe Saffron, one of the most notorious, despicable human beings, if one can use that term loosely, living in this country. In July 1978 the New South Wales Government found that a building owned by the Public Transport Authority had been illegally sublet by Sir Paul Strasser and another developer to two companies owned by Mr Abe Saffron and that the building now housed a gambling club, a brothel and a sex shop. The New South Wales Government chose to buy out the lease-this is almost incom- prehensible-at a cost to the public purse of $2.6m. There is no record of any action against the gambling club or the brothel. Let me turn to the Bill Allen affair. In 1981, Premier Wran appointed Mr Bill Allen Deputy Commissioner of Police, even as misconduct investigations against Mr Allen were in progress. Following disclosure of these investigations, an inquiry was established and found that Mr Allen had maintained contact with Mr Saffron, had tried to bribe a sergeant, had obtained free airline tickets from a person who wanted to get a casino licence and free accommodation at Caesar's Palace from the Bally poker machine company and in San Francisco at the expense of Mr Waterhouse, who was also interested in obtaining a casino licence. Mr Allen was then Deputy Commissioner of Police in New South Wales. He was allowed to retire with a pension of $17,000 and an immediate lump sum payment of $37,000 . No legal action was ever taken against Mr Allen. As I have said, this all reads like an extract from a novel such as The Godfather or a novel on mobster rule in Chicago or New York in the 1920s. In fact, this information was published in the National Times on 24 June of this year. I find it incomprehensible that no legal action was taken by any of the people or organisations named or identified in that article. We know that some of the people who were named in the article have always been very quick on the draw in issuing writs for defamation when their names have been used or misused. In this case, although specific allegations were made, no writs have been taken out and it is now several months since the article was published. The National Crimes Commission summit conference earlier this year resulted in a disgusting exhibition of petty little State politicians pushing their precious State rights. Even though organised crime is flourishing their main concern seemed to be that that did not matter as long as States' rights were preserved. It now seems that the Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, whom I compliment today for his patience and fortitude at that conference, will have considerable opposition to overcome before he can use the avenue of a crimes commission to tackle organised crime and police corruption in this country. I should have liked to have asked him whether he would undertake to refer the matters that I have raised to the Crimes Commission but its establishment seems a long way away . However, the matter still remains extremely urgent. I therefore ask the Attorney-General whether he is prepared to establish a royal commission, at Federal level, to inquire into police corruption and political corruption in Australia, particularly in the two States that I have named, one run by a Labor Government and the other run by a National Party Government. I proceed with my request on the assumption that the governments of the States concerned, the Wran Government and the Bjelke-Petersen Government, have nothing to hide and would co-operate with the Federal Government in organising such a royal commission. I would assume that both of those Premiers would be as concerned about organised crime as those of us in this chamber and, seeing that these matters that I have raised, all of them serious matters, have received no investigation since they were disclosed, it would seem to me that a royal commission at Federal level with State co-operation is the only solution. I press that matter before the Federal Attorney-General. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory (1.38) —I seek leave to table various papers, letters and telex exchanges between the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, and the Chief Minister for the Northern Territory, Mr Everingham, relating to the Alice Springs-Darwin railway; papers by Australian National, entitled 'Planning and Design of the Alice Springs-Darwin Railway'; submissions from the four mayors of the Northern Territory, the Lord Mayor of Darwin, Mr Cecil Black, the Mayor of Alice Springs, Mrs Lesley Oldfield, the Mayor of Katherine, Mrs Patricia Davies and the Mayor of Tennant Creek, Mr Alf Chittock; and various other documents. Leave granted. Senator KILGARIFF —I should like first of all to refer to the document submitted by the chief civil engineer of Australian National, Mr Smith, entitled 'Planning and Design of the Alice Springs-Darwin Railway'. It is a most comprehensive document and I draw it to the attention of honourable senators and to the public in general. It is self-explanatory and refers to the proposed railway line to stretch some 1,440 kilometres from Alice Springs to Darwin. It has been mooted over the past few years and has now come to the stage where it is practically ready for construction. Planning and designing for the railroad project continues. This year some $65m is available to cover the planning and designing phase to bring it to the stage where construction can commence. Some 100 people- planners, designers, surveyors, engineers and the many support personnel-are still employed to bring the project to the point of readiness for actual construction. That is very heartening. As I have indicated in the documents that have been tabled in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, there is an exchange of letters and telexes between the Prime Minister and Mr Everingham between the dates of 16 September last year and 24 August this year. There is also a joint memorandum from the Premier of South Australia and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory in support of the Alice Springs to Darwin railway and notes of meetings between the Prime Minister and representatives of the Northern Territory and South Australian governments and officials of the Department of Transport dated 18 August 1983. All this advice is self-explanatory and all the documents are public. The Prime Minister has indicated that an inquiry into the railroad should be held although one would ask why it is necessary for such an inquiry when previously this project was at the point of construction. Senator Button —The question is whether it is worth spending the money on it. You would not argue about that, would you? Senator KILGARIFF —The interjection asked whether it is worth spending money on it. The Prime Minister in the previous Government, Mr Fraser, supported by the Leader of the National Party of Australia, Mr Doug Anthony, indicated that he believed that this was the case and the project had been agreed to at that stage . I am not here now to debate that point. It was also indicated by the Prime Minister that the Northern Territory should contribute to the railway. In response to that, Mr Everingham explained that the Northern Territory was funded on the basis of responsibilities which had been transferred to it. This did not include railways. The Commonwealth Grants Commission made regular assessments of the Northern Territory's funding situation and always concluded that the Territory was underfunded to meet its responsibilities. The Prime Minister noted too that the Commonwealth could also do with more funds. He emphasised that the inquiry would proceed and invited South Australia and the Northern Territory to co-operate in the structure and details. He emphasised, too, that if that co- operation was not forthcoming the Commonwealth would go ahead on its own basis. Of course, that was an unwarranted threat because both South Australia and the Northern Territory had agreed wholeheartedly under the circumstances that they would participate in this inquiry to bring about its completion and in an endeavour to ensure that as little time as possible was lost. Mr Everingham also noted that the Commonwealth was imposing the inquiry on the Northern Territory regardless of the views of the Northern Territory or South Australia. In these circumstances he agreed that the officers would participate with the Commonwealth in preparing the terms of reference, et cetera. However, Mr Everingham noted that the Northern Territory would not be able to indicate whether it would co-operate with the inquiry until a Commonwealth attitude to the terms of reference and other relevant details was clear. I call upon the Government to bring about the terms of reference for the inquiry and to name the inquirers as quickly as possible to avoid as little delay as possible. Honourable senators would have noted some two weeks ago-there was considerable publicity in the media-the arrival in Canberra and here at Parliament House of the delegation of the four mayors of the Northern Territory. Also included in that delegation was Mr Noel Fullerton, who is a well known cameleer not only in the Northern Territory but also in Australia. It was he who brought his camels down from Central Australia and he made a rather imposing figure at the doors of Parliament House when he pleaded with the Government to continue with this project. For the next few minutes I take the opportunity to discuss briefly the submission of the four mayors who came from the Northern Territory. Their submission began: May we, as the elected leaders of the four local government authorities in the Northern Territory, voice our disapproval on behalf of Territorians at the decision of your Government to require from Territorians a 40 per cent contribution towards the total cost of construction of the Alice Springs to Darwin Railway. Many words have been spoken since then and in the advice to the Prime Minister from the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, he indicated that the Territory was not funded in a manner to allow such money to be applied to the railway. The submission of the mayors continued: It is totally un-Australian to deprive 120,000 Australians of a basic service which is available to virtually all other Australians and especially if account is taken of the spin-off effect of the Railway in terms of direct job creation, trade, tourism, etc. for not only the Northern Territory, but many other parts of Australia. Amongst the points that they brought forward, they commented that the rail link would enable Territory companies to look to penetrate the larger southern markets and similarly southern companies would be able to tap previously economically inaccessible areas in the north. This would create a healthy trade growth in both the north and south. The result would be more jobs. The submission went on to say that a reliable transportation link would improve trade with South East Asia. It stated: Darwin will become an economic alternative to the cluttered ports of the south and with regular shipping into the Port of Darwin the transporting of Territory and Australian goods overseas and the importing of goods especially from south- east Asia will be evident. This development as an import and export centre will result in the growth of service industries. The result would be more jobs. It continued: The completion of the Alice Springs to Darwin Railway will significantly bolster the number of tourists coming to the Territory. It continued in that vein and stated: We are confident that with the Railway there would be a boom in tourism and as such a growth in services required at all tourist centres to cater for this boom . The result would be more jobs. It went on to stress that during the construction phase there would be direct employment for about 300 people over the life of the project. The multiplier effect of this full employment during the construction phase would have a significant impact on employment in a multiplicity of other industries. They estimated that at least 750 new jobs in the Northern Territory and a further 1,100 new jobs in Australia would be generated during each year of the construction phase. It went on to point out, also, that there would be a tremendous spin-off around Australia, for instance, in Whyalla. It stated that 150,000 tonnes of steel rail will be used and will in all probability be produced at Whyalla. The submission continued: A total of 2.25 million concrete and steel sleepers will be required for the project. One thousand culverts, 25,000 metres of culvert pipes and 100 individual bridges will be required. Earthworks will require 17 million cubic metres in embankments and 3 million cubic metres in cuttings. The result, of course, would be more jobs. It continued: When the Railway becomes operational, it will immediately create 240 new jobs in the Northern Territory. It is of interest to note, too, that seven to 11 new locomotives will be initially required and this will rise to 27 or 31 locomotives in due course. Five hundred new freight wagons and 25 new passenger cars will be needed. This will probably rise to 2,000 freight wagons in due course, This plant will probably be built and maintained in New South Wales and South Australia and will contribute substantially to employment in the iron, steel and heavy engineering industries. The result would be more jobs. The mayors consider that the impact on the communities that they represent would be most significant. Retail, manufacturing, mining, pastoral, agricultural, service and tourist industries will use the urban centres as hubs to transport their requirements and products to and from suppliers and markets. The result would of course be more jobs. The submission continued: On a wider basis, the Railway will greatly increase the potential for development of resource based and export oriented industries in nothern Australia. It refers also to the defence aspect, a matter that is of tremendous importance: The availability of the Railway will enhance Australia's northern defence capability and assist, if commenced from the Darwin end at an early date, the development of Tindal Air Base at Katherine. Furthermore, Darwin is the only Capital City and the largest community in Australia not being served by rail. Once again, more jobs would result. The tabling of these documents makes available to the people who are most interested in these projects the exchange of correspondence that has taken place between the two leaders-the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, Mr Everingham. Also, it indicates the role that Mr Bannon has played in conjunction with the Northern Territory. So I look forward to this inquiry with considerable interest. I ask the Government to allow it to take place and to nominate an inquirer. It is of tremendous interest to see that Australian National is still carrying out design activities. This most essential work will come to a close by -some say-the end of this financial year. By then the project will be ready to go. I hope the inquiry will be carried out quickly and that no undue delay whatsoever will be occasioned when it has been completed. I believe there can be only one result, a result that will confirm the necessity for the railway, one that will confirm that the proposal will be financially viable. With all these matters going forward I hope that there will be a recommendation in, say, one year's time will result in construction of this most important project. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(1.52) —This afternoon I wish to refer to a number of matters. They fall into the category of local matters as far as the Australian Capital Territory is concerned. They are important to people of the Australian Capital Territory and to me. This is, I think, an appropriate time to raise some of the issues. This morning the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) tabled a statement in which he dealt with the extension of the Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service. I commented then that I was pleased the Service would be made available in Canberra as soon as possible and, hopefully, at the time he mentioned, that is, November. I would like to refer to another matter in the area of Veterans' Affairs. On 29 May this year the Minister announced that a regional centre for conducting repatriation medical examinations and dealing with repatriation claims would be established in Canberra. This was greeted by the local veteran community with pleasure. Many veterans in Canberra and the surrounding districts will be able to take advantage of such a centre. The Minister said specifically that the regional office would be for the purpose of serving the southern region of New South Wales. So far nothing more has been heard about the establishment of the office. I remind the Minister of the fact that he announced that it would be set up and ask him how long it will be before it becomes available. I ask him to expedite the establishment of the handling of repatriation claims and the conducting of medical examinations in the Australian Capital Territory. It will be of great assistance to veterans and widows in this area. At present they are frequently required to visit Sydney and to correspond with departments based in Sydney. This is cumbersome. For people who have the sorts of problems with which veterans often deal it is more worrying that the Department is decentralised in that way. This morning I referred briefly to the transport problems as far as Canberra is concerned. The same argument applies to veterans who are in this category. I now refer to a matter which involves the Department of Territories and Local Government and concerns the Australian Capital Territory obtaining from both New South Wales and Victoria a reasonable share of the profits of lottery tickets sold in the Australian Capital Territory for New South Wales and Victorian lotteries. A former Minister for the Capital Territory, Mr Ellicott, negotiated an agreement with the then Liberal Government in Victoria that 75 per cent of the profit from Australian Capital Territory sales would be returned to the Australian Capital Territory. That has happened. Such a payment does not eat into administrative funds; it comes out of surplus funds. Prize money, administrative costs and so on are deducted before the money comes back to the Australian Capital Territory. The previous Minister for the Capital Territory, Mr Hodgman, believed that 100 per cent of the surplus moneys should be returned to the Australian Capital Territory and was negotiating to that end. It may be that we will or will not ever succeed in getting back 100 per cent of the money to which I refer, but at least we are getting 75 per cent from Victoria. The agreement that was finally reached with New South Wales was that it would pay 33 1/2 per cent, backdated from July 1982, and 50 per cent as from October 1982, but the agreement was only to be in force until 30 June this year. I ask the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) what has happened to the negotiations-or more specifically, I guess, the money? A report in the Canberra Times of 14 July stated that talks had begun between Australian Capital Territory officials and the New South Wales and Victorian governments to finalise arrangements. I have not heard anything further since. I would want to be sure that any final agreement involved the payment of the money from 1 July this year when the last agreement ran out. I want to see that we receive a reasonable share at least, if not 100 per cent, of the funds that can go into our Community Development Fund for use in the Australian Capital Territory. I ask the Minister to expedite the negotiations with a view to resolving the matter. In the Australian Capital Territory, as in other States, there is an agreement between the Master Builders Association of the Australian Capital Territory and the Government for an apprenticeship scheme which operates to provide opportunities for apprentices within the building industry. It has been, as was stated in the Master Builders Association annual report, a most successful scheme. A number of young people have been provided with opportunities that they would not have had otherwise. A matter I have raised before and raise now is the question of the Master Builders Association paying payroll tax on the moneys that are used for this scheme. The scheme was set up under the Liberal Government, and it was a scheme which I applauded. Right from the beginning I have pressed Ministers to get together to work out an arrangement for the payroll tax to be exempt to enable more moneys to be available to indenture apprentices in the building industry. Perhaps one of the problems is that so many Ministers are involved in coming to a decision on this matter-perhaps the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins), the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Minister for Territories and Local Government. One of the problems we have is that a number of Ministers are involved in just about anything that goes on in the Australian Capital Territory. The real beneficiaries of such an exemption would be young people in Canberra who would be able to obtain apprenticeship training which would not be available to them otherwise. I ask the Minister for Territories and Local Government to take up this matter with his colleagues with a view to exempting this scheme from payroll tax. Also, I ask the Minister to table the report that he has had for some nine weeks now on the review of the National Capital Development Commission. The community wants to know what is in the report. It is an important document which reviews an important authority in this community. The review was commissioned as a result of a decision reached following the Review of Commonwealth Functions. The Minister received the report some nine weeks ago. He said that he wanted an opportunity to read it, which was not unreasonable, but sufficient time has now passed. He said that he would table the report in the Budget session and he has, I believe, had time to do so. I ask that he give immediate attention to releasing the report so that the community can study it in great detail. The PRESIDENT —Pursuant to sessional order, I call on Questions Without Notice. Senator MESSNER —I address my question to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and refer to his comments on 6 July, when he said: There are people with hundreds of thousands of dollars, even some millionaires, who are receiving the service pension. I refer also to his later threats about naming names in Parliament. Does the Minister not agree with his former leader, Mr Hayden, who in March last year said that this sort of argument about millionaires receiving pensions was 'a cruel and emotional device to cover up the Government's real intentions', those real intentions being 'to justify ripping the pension off ordinary people with modest savings they have worked for all their lives'? Senator GIETZELT —Senator Messner has asked me a question about the substantial assets which some applicants have declared when they have made an approach to the Department of Veterans' Affairs through any of its six branches which come under my jurisdiction. In applications for a service pension some people have declared substantial assets in the form of cash which has been placed in family trusts, bank accounts and trading accounts in such a way as to avoid an income from such deposits. This happened to such an extent that officers in the various State branches drew it to the attention of the head of the Department, Mr Volker , and then conducted an inquiry. We found that some people who had received lump sum superannuation payments in excess of $100,000 or people with over $200,000 in a trading account-honourable senators would be aware that such accounts do not attract interest-were able to claim successfully for payment of a service pension in consequence of their not receiving any substantial income. So the remarks I made at various Returned Services League congresses were true both in substance and in particular instances. People with substantial assets are in fact and not in fantasy so organising their affairs as to avoid the responsibilities of providing for their own retirement. I do not resile from the statements I made. I believe that in the circumstances the Government had no alternative but to have an examination of the whole problem of assets and incomes as they related to service pension applicants. I draw the Senate's attention to the fact that over the next five years there will be 190,000 potential service pension applicants. If we multiply that figure by the amount of $35,000 which, in current dollars, would be the average amount to which they and their spouses are entitled over that period, the total sum is considerable. We are quite happy to pay that, on the basis of the legislation that was introduced in 1935, to persons who are not in receipt of income. Fortunately, the forms which applicants fill in for the service pension require them to provide details of assets and income, as distinct from the forms for aged or invalid pensions. I was not gilding the lily when I made my comments. I was expressing the concern of my Department and of the Government when I made my comments. Senator MESSNER —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank Senator Gietzelt for his remarks, but I wonder whether he might address himself to the remarks of his former leader, Mr Hayden, and to whether or not his statement during the Lowe by-election was one of the reasons that led to Mr Hayden's demise as Leader of the Labor Party. The PRESIDENT —Order! I do not know that that is a supplementary question. Senator MESSNER —I make one other point, Mr President. I ask Senator Gietzelt to advise us how many people dealt with in each State branch of his Department fall into the millionaire category, as he describes it, and, as he claims, should be dealt with by the legislation proposed by the Government. Senator GIETZELT —I am not in a position to indicate how many potential millionaires or millionaires in fact were breaching what I consider to be the spirit and morality of service pension legislation. I am reasonably confident that something like 10 per cent of all applicants for service pensions had sufficient assets to provide for their own weekly needs. Senator PRIMMER —My question is directed to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and refers to the statement he made to the Senate this morning with regard to the Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service. He stated that centres have been established in all State capitals and Darwin and, in addition, will be opened shortly in Canberra and Townsville. I applaud this initiative, but I am still concerned that difficulty may be experienced by Vietnam veterans in remote areas in gaining access to this Service. Can the Minister advise the Senate precisely what assistance is available to Vietnam veterans in outlying areas which would facilitate their access to the Counselling Service? Senator GIETZELT —The difficulties of assisting country clients entitled to be assisted by the Department of Veterans' Affairs are long standing. The problem for veterans generally is growing because they are becoming older. For those who served in Vietnam we have a specific problem. Many of them have moved to country areas because of the nature of their illnesses or the problems of adaptation to civilian life. The problems of providing a counselling service have been recognised by the present Government and various arrangements have been entered into in order to take at least some steps to solve the problem. I refer specifically to the fact that each of our Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service centres will accept reverse charge telephone calls from country clients. That means, of course, that the charge is borne by the Department and not by the person seeking assistance. Depending upon the nature of the problem facing the Vietnam veterans, our counsellors will visit country centres to contact the veterans and to liaise with existing community resources in those areas to assist not only the veterans but also their families, if that is the sort of counselling that is necessary. In my statement this morning I indicated that, to improve the service in regional areas, we are extending operations to Canberra and Townsville. It has been decided recently that, where a Vietnam veteran has a disability or problem that is accepted by the Department, if he is referred to us by his local medical officer or to the Counselling Service he is entitled to reimbursement for any of the travel expenses he incurs in coming to the city for the sort of treatment he needs. Senator REID —I direct my question to the Minister for Social Security. I refer to the Government's proposed assets test and, in particular, to the deemed rate of 10 per cent to be applied to all non-exempt assets in assessing income for pension purposes. Does the Minister agree that there are certain assets which do not produce any income but which are part of everyday living? I cite the example of a couple who retire on 50 acres or so; their home will be exempt from the assets test, but the rest of the property will not. Why has the Government rejected Treasury's recommendation that a lower deemed rate be applied to these types of non-financial assets thus placing an additional burden on ordinary Australians? Senator GRIMES —Firstly, I point out that the 10 per cent deemed rate is the same deemed rate that applied before 1976 when interest rates were considerably lower . We consider this to be a generous deemed rate. Secondly, Senator Reid alleged that the Treasury recommended a lower deemed rate. I am afraid I do not recollect having seen that recommendation of the Treasury in any papers but I will-- Senator Walsh —Nobody has. Senator GRIMES —I do not think anyone has. I certainly cannot remember anyone in the discussions we had recommending a lower deemed rate. Thirdly, the honourable senator referred to the example of a person living on 50 acres of land. We have announced, as applied in the previous assets test, that people on rural properties of the type about which Senator Reid talked are in need of special consideration and I agree that that is so. In fact, I think that under the previous assets test, as Senator Reid said, the general rule was that the house plus a quarter of an acre or so of land was all that was allowed to be exempt. I have indicated to the Department, as I have in discussions with the pensioner organisations, that I believe that that is too harsh. I believe that we should have, in keeping with the flexibility that was in the previous legislation, a more reasonable approach to rural properties and land of that type. I would be interested in hearing Senator Reid's views on what is a reasonable amount of land under those circumstances. I say in general that assets that are not capable of producing an income, assets which are locked up in trusts, for instance, to which people cannot get access, will in fact not be deemed to produce income. We have to come to a satisfactory arrangement about the sorts of properties Senator Reid has referred to. We will be spending the next couple of months talking to various groups in the community so that we can come up with a satisfactory situation. That is why we did not rush in, to use a rural analogy, like a bull at a gate, with firm recommendations which were rigid and which, undoubtedly, would have aroused, reasonably so, the ire of people in those circumstances. Senator RICHARDSON —I preface my question by saying that I would have asked it yesterday but I was attending a meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations, which sat all day in accordance with a resolution of this place. I address my question to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. In view of the importance that the Government has placed on establishing new industries in Australia, when can we expect a decision on the report of the Espie High Technology Financing Committee? What will be the implications of the report for high technology industries in Australia? Senator BUTTON —It is very difficult to assess the implications of the implementation of a report such as the Espie report for high technology industries. In a sense, the Espie report is recommending taking something of a plunge into the future. I will come back to that aspect of the Espie recommendations in a minute. I make the initial point, in answer to Senator Richardson's question, that for a number of years expert committees-the Crawford Committee, the Myers Committee of Inquiry into Technological Change in Australia and, more recently, the Espie Committee-have advocated the greater availability within Australia of venture capital or risk capital to support new and high technology industries. I think it is fair to say that governments-particularly the last one-were particularly remiss in taking any action to deal with the suggestions made in those various reports. Many governments overseas, most successfully the United States Government, have embarked on very imaginative ways of encouraging the availability of venture capital for new industries. The whole Silicon Valley experiment, which has been highly successful, was based on the availability of venture capital encouraged by the United States Government. The present Government wants to see more capital available for these purposes in support of high technology industries in Australia. The Espie report, to which Senator Richardson referred-I notice that Senator MacGibbon referred to this topic in a scintillating speech that he made during the luncheon period- recommended the establishment of private sector management investment companies which would marshal equity capital for investment in firms with a high growth potential in high technology areas. I think there is an additional important element in the Espie proposals. It is not just a question of marshalling capital . The suggestion implicit in the Espie proposals is that that capital and those businesses should have management expertise available to them as well as money. The Espie Committee suggested that the subscriptions to the management investment companies should be tax deductible to compensate for the difficulties faced by firms raising venture capital, particularly the very high risks involved. The Government, of course, as has been seen in the newspapers, has had the Espie report under consideration for some time, together with other means of increasing the availability of venture capital such as through the Australian Industry Development Corporation. Major decisions will be announced very shortly in respect of the Espie Committee report and the AIDC. The Government has already made decisions to provide the Australian Industry Development Corporation with extra capital-$12.5m was allocated in the Budget-to expand its gearing ratio to 1 : 15, to remove it from the requirements of the Australian Loan Council in respect of its borrowings and to provide it with a Commonwealth Government guarantee. That will vastly strengthen the position of the Corporation in terms of the assistance it will be able to offer both to new industries and to existing Australian industries anxious to upgrade their technological performance. Senator CHIPP —I ask a question of the Minister for Social Security. Is it true that because the proportion of old people in our country is increasing rapidly the time is at hand when fewer and fewer young people will be earning wages and paying taxes to support more and more old people who will be asking for pensions ? Has the Leader of the Opposition stated that the coalition parties will abolish the assets test when they are returned to office? How then can the Government expect a standing committee of this Senate, which has been asked to report on this and allied matters, to discuss the matter objectively if half its number have already been committed to destroying the assets test? Will he now reconsider the Australian Democrats proposal for, not a Senate committee, but a royal commission into this question and into the questions of income security, taxation, wealth distribution, national superannuation and a scheme for a guaranteed minimum income for all Australians? Can the Minister tell us how a group of six hard working politicians, half of whom have been pre-empted already from using their own free will, can help the pensioners of this country? Senator GRIMES —As Senator Chipp says, it is true that we have an aging population. The proportion of the aged and other social security recipients in the community will increase and the proportion of taxpayers to support them will decrease. That is not only a fact of which Senator Chipp and all Government members are aware but also a fact which has been talked about in recent times by none other than Mr Peacock, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard, the former Treasurer and present Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and many other members of the present Opposition parties. I would like to modify one thing that Senator Chipp said. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Peacock, said in his statement that on return to office the Liberal and National parties will repeal the legislation pertaining to the assets test, the changes in the taxation of superannuation lump sums and the means test for those over 70 years of age. He said that the coalition will repeal those three pieces of legislation. It will not amend or modify them but will repeal them. As Senator Chipp says, that means that in any investigation of the development of a comprehensive policy by the Opposition parties or in any investigation by the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare the Liberal Party and National Party Opposition has in fact pre-empted those three options. That is an absolutely ludicrous and untenable situation. Senator Button —It might be a Fraser-type promise. You might not have to worry about it. Senator GRIMES —It may be a Fraser-type promise. When Senator Messner came into this place on, I think, 25 August and gave notice of a motion in which he would ask the Senate to refer to the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare the matter of retirement incomes, he did so with considerable haste. He did so, I point out, without consulting the Chairman of that Committee, which is the usual practice. I said in the debate here that although it is not in my nature to attribute improper motives to members of the Opposition, I suspected that it might have been done for political purposes. It seems to me, now that the Leader of the Opposition has made his announcement about repealing this legislation, that in fact it may be more likely that it was done with political motives. Therefore, I have some concern about how the Senate Standing Committee can proceed in this matter, with so many of its members tied into another policy. As to the establishment of a royal commission, I will certainly consider what Senator Chipp has suggested and I will ask the Government to consider it. At the moment I would not favour it, for this reason: We have had, first of all, in relatively recent times the Henderson Commission of Inquiry into Poverty. That was a very broad inquiry into poverty, including poverty amongst retired people. We have had the Hancock National Superannuation Committee of Inquiry. We have had the Asprey Taxation Review Committee, which took into account some aspects of this matter. Some aspects of retirement, particularly superannuation, were looked at by the Campbell Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System. I would have thought that we have enough information and enough comprehensive views from this community to proceed with a comprehensive policy to reform the present retirement system and lead up to a national superannuation scheme. That is why I said-I am pleased that the Australian Democrats said this also-that I did not see the referral of the matter to the Senate Standing Committee as necessarily pre-empting proper consideration of assets test legislation and other legislation. At this moment I do not see any need for a royal commission. I am disappointed that the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare apparently will be so restricted in its activities. Senator GILES —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. Further to the question asked yesterday by Senator Jones, has the Minister's attention been drawn to claims by the Queensland Premier that the Queensland Government alone could fund the Bradfield scheme? Can the Minister advise the Senate of the cost to Queensland taxpayers if this scheme were to go ahead? Senator WALSH —Yes, I have heard of reports that the Queensland Premier has stated that Queensland alone would fund the scheme. As I said yesterday, in response to a similar question, had it been anyone other than the Queensland Premier I would not have accepted that those reports were accurate. There are two possibilities, I think, in assessing this proposal. One is that it is just a cheap political stunt cooked up for the Queensland State election, one similar to the cheap stunt cooked up by the discredited former Government when, in its death throes, it was running amok with the cheque book and promised to squander $5m of taxpayers' money on a further inquiry into the Bradfield scheme when the inquiry of Cameron McNamara Pty Ltd commissioned by the Queensland Government was already in existence. That inquiry showed that the delivered cost per megalitre of water delivered to the target irrigation area would be 20 times as high as the delivered cost from the Burdekin. It also gave a number of other figures which are highly relevant to the question asked by Senator Giles. One was that the capital cost per irrigated hectare would be $23,000. High quality irrigation land in other parts of Australia sells for around $5,000 per hectare, or a little more perhaps in some cases. The inquiry showed that the capital cost would be $23,000 per hectare and the total cost $1,380m, which is $1,500 for every Queensland taxpayer. In addition, it can be assessed from the information in the Cameron McNamara report that there would be electricity costs for pumping the water of $ 57m a year and a total pumping cost, including electricity plus other charges, of $1,500 per hectare. That means that, in addition to the $1,500 which every Queensland taxpayer would have to provide initially for the capital for the scheme, they would then be lumbered in perpetuity with paying $120 a year a head . If the Queensland Premier is really serious about this proposal as distinct from resurrecting a cheap political stunt for purposes of the State election, it is perfectly clear that the only way in which that could be funded by Queensland alone is by imposing a massive second income tax in the State of Queensland. It is not possible in any other way to accommodate expenditure of that magnitude from State government revenue sources. Senator Chipp —Mr President, I raise a point of order. We get used in this place to the odd dorothy dixer, particularly when an election is about to take place. One could be forgiven for being suspicious about this question. A Western Australian senator asked a detailed question about a Queensland matter. I suggest to you, Mr President, that you have a responsibility to other honourable senators in this place to discipline Ministers if they obviously abuse Question Time as this Minister is doing. The PRESIDENT —In response to the point of order taken by Senator Chipp, I say that it is not for the Chair to interfere in the questions asked by honourable senators in respect of any part of Australia. So far as the Minister's answer is concerned, whilst the answer so far has been pertinent to the question that has been asked, I ask him to bear in mind the need for other honourable senators to ask questions and to bring his answer to a conclusion as soon as possible. Senator WALSH —I am very conscious of that, Mr President. I intend to conclude very shortly. I note in passing that there are no Queensland National Party senators in the chamber. If the proposal of the Queensland Premier, who has already saddled the State with a crippling debt, vastly in excess of the per capita debt of any other State, is to be taken seriously it should be viewed as an extension of the fiscal irresponsibility which has already landed Queensland in its ominous debt situation. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to his response to my speech in the Senate last night. Referring to me, he said: . . . he chastised this Government about unemployment when this Government has been in office for only 5 1/2 months. He chastised this Government at a time when there is every sign that the alarming decline in employment has been halted . I remind the Leader of the Government that his view last night was that the alarming decline in employment has been halted. Has he seen the Australian Bureau of Statistics publication on the labour force of Australia which was published today? Has he seen that, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, between July and August employment decreased by 52,000, the number not in the labour force increased by 70,300, and the labour force participation rate decreased from 60.4 per cent to 59.8 per cent? I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate: In light of the figures published today, does he persist in his view that the alarming decline in employment has been halted and does he persist in his view that the Government has satisfactorily come to grips with this problem? Senator BUTTON —Let me begin with the last part of Senator Chaney's question. He asked me whether I regarded the effects of the Government's response to this issue as satisfactory. Of course I do not. Unemployment is an enormous problem in Australia in 1983 and the Government knows and has said publicly that it will continue to be so. Insofar as the ABS figures are concerned, I have not examined them in detail. A number of surveys, apart from those ABS figures, have been published recently and I think they are quite capable of leading me to say that, to quote Senator Chaney, the alarming decline in employment has been halted. I refer to the figures on registrations for unemployment benefit and I refer, for example, to the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd survey and the recent survey by the Victorian Chamber of Manufacturers, in support of that view . Senator Chaney, of course, is raising the question of a decline in the labour market participation rates. That is a matter about which I am not in a position to comment in detail at this stage, not having seen the figures. It is undoubtedly true that for a variety of reasons there has been a decline in those participation rates. I will undertake to examine the figures and give Senator Chaney a further answer in due course. Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. I note that the Leader of the Government in the Senate does not regard a decline of 52,000 as alarming, but I ask him whether he agrees that a reduction in labour force participation rates of as much as 0.6 of one per cent in one month is a clear reason why there would be some evidence of a decline in the registered unemployed, and that that is the equivalent of an even greater rise in the number of those out of work in Australia. Senator BUTTON —Yes, I concede that that may be so. If Senator Chaney understands the figures on the decline in the participation rates better than I do, I would be glad to hear about it. I have not examined the figures and I would like to have some detailed consideration of them before I make further comment on that decline, which is serious if the figures mentioned by Senator Chaney are correct. Senator CROWLEY —My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications. In the Sixty Minutes program on 31 July it was mentioned that over 10,000 scanners have been sold in Australia. These scanners are capable of listening in on police, fire brigade, aircraft, ships at sea, taxis and anyone else using a two-way radio, as well as car phone conversations. Is the Government giving any consideration to banning these scanners or licensing the same, and what, if any, other proposals are being considered by the Government on this question? Senator BUTTON —I am aware of the large number of scanners now available in Australia. As Senator Crowley gave me notice of her question, I sought information from the Minister for Communications. If the Opposition does not get too excited, I will read that out because it might be helpful in regard to Senator Crowley's concern about this matter. The Minister says that it is true that there is a cheap and widely available range of scanners in Australia at the moment as a result of advances in microprocessor technology. The sale and operation of these receivers for interception is not illegal except where the Telecom Australia mobile radio telephone service is involved. There is no point, as I understand it, in banning or licensing scanners. It is neither practical nor justified because many people, especially young people, find radio a fascinating hobby and learn from the use of scanners. It would be quite ineffective to pass a law making interception illegal, as such a law would be quite unenforceable. However, the Government is examining whether radio communications privacy legislation could be effective if it covered a technological solution to the problem. The Sixty Minutes program performed a public service in making people realise that radio transmissions can be easily overheard and I am instructed that the Minister's Department is discussing with Telecom Australia the special case of the Telcom mobile phone system. Of course, in a sense, the Sixty Minutes program had a melodramatic quality to it and I think it is important to realise that, in today's technological society, using the spectrum is regarded by many people, particularly young people, as very much like using a public street. The simple fact of the matter is that if one speaks in the street one may expect to be overheard, and if one uses the radio spectrum one may perhaps expect to be overheard. Undesirable as that may appear to be, it seems to be a matter of fact . Senator JESSOP —I direct a question to the Minister for Social Security. I ask the Minister whether he is aware of a Press statement released on 21 June in which the Minister for Finance said 'most people get tiny lump sum settlements'. He also quoted figures which showed that in 1980-81, according to the latest available statistics, only one per cent of those who had the advantage of lump sum payments received more than $100,000; that 92 per cent received less than $ 20,000; and that three-quarters of those received less than $5,000. What sort of return of annuities would the Minister expect that $5,000 to bring? Senator GRIMES —No, I am not aware of the statement issued by the Minister for Finance on 21 June but I will look it up for the honourable senator. I cannot guarantee the accuracy of the figures he has quoted, but they do not surprise me . Those figures are of lump sums which include termination payments for people who left jobs after a few years or at various other periods during their careers . The sort of annuity that one could buy for that size lump sum is very low, but consultations have been held between the Treasurer, the Minister for Finance and various sections of those industries which will provide annuities, in order to come to satisfactory agreements for the future. I will pass on the question to the Minister for Finance and the Treasurer, whose responsibility it is to get an accurate answer to the sorts of questions the honourable senator has asked. Senator ELSTOB —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. It refers to a recent report on government training and employment programs. The report has revealed that young unemployed people have the highest participation rate and have 10 times the chance of receiving assistance that older unemployed people have. As 53 per cent of all unemployed are in the over-25 age group, can the Minister advise what positive action can be taken to accommodate and cater for the needs of people in this age group? Senator BUTTON —I have not seen the particular document to which Senator Elstob referred. The comment he made, which is derived from that document, is one which causes concern. It illustrates the difficult problem of a tendency to focus on those in certain age groups as fashionable recipients in the sense of their receiving particular attention in respect of their unemployment situation. In order that Senator Elstob might have a comprehensive answer to an important question, I will direct that question to my colleague the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and obtain an answer as soon as possible. Senator LEWIS —My question is directed to the Minister for social insecurity. I refer to the Minister's reply to Senator Sir John Carrick yesterday in which he said, firstly, that the Government was not intending to apply any new rules governing the disposal of assets between now and the introduction of the assets test and, secondly, that the existing deprivation provisions would apply, they being that if people sold or gave away assets in order to qualify for the pension or related benefits they would be deemed to have retained those assets for the purposes of the test. I ask the Minister: Is it not a fact that under current provisions a pensioner may have unlimited assets, say $100,000, in non- interest bearing funds such as a trading bank without prejudicing current pension rights? Is it not a fact further that under current provisions a pensioner may spend those funds without prejudicing pension rights? What will be the position if such a pensioner in the period prior to the introduction of the assets test purchases jewellery, antiques, works of art, a boat, a caravan or other such personal possessions? Finally, I ask the Minister: If there are to be limitations, will he please spell out precisely what those limitations will be? Senator GRIMES —In answering the last part of Senator Lewis's question-I will not try to match his brilliant Victorian wit-I say that if a person purchases jewellery or goes on a trip across Australia, in exchange for a sum of money, of course he will not be deemed to be avoiding the income test or the assets test; he never has been. I said that there was provision in the legislation for people who deliberately, in a manipulative way, hand over a sum of money to a relative, for instance, in exchange for nothing and who, in fact, have that money paid back to them bit by bit. That is deemed to be depriving themselves of an income. That was so under the old assets test and will be so under the new assets test. I will certainly obtain for Senator Lewis the legal details as to how the old assets test operated. I will give Senator Lewis and this Parliament, when they are finalised, the exact details of what we consider to be deprivation or not under the new assets test. We are talking about gross deprivation of assets or income. I assure Senator Lewis and every pensioner in this country that that will not apply-it never has-to someone who actually purchases something and gets , in exchange for a given amount of money, goods equivalent thereto. In other words we are not, as was suggested by an Opposition spokesman, as reported in one newspaper a couple of days ago, suggesting at any stage that if, for instance, someone goes on a trip in exchange for money he will be deemed to have been depriving himself of income or assets. Senator SIBRAA —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Special Minister of State. Is it a fact that the former Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Fraser, spoke at three businessmen's luncheons after the announcement of the election date and that the total cost of those dinners was approximately $24,000 ? Is it further a fact that this $24,000 was paid for by the Australian taxpayer and not by the Liberal Party of Australia? Will the Minister investigate this matter and report back to the Senate? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have heard some sordid suggestions of that kind. As a result, I will ensure that the matter is investigated by the appropriate Minister, who I assume is the Special Minister of State, although it may be the Minister for Administrative Services, and bring back such information as I can to the Senate. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I direct my question to the Minister for Social Security. Does the Minister acknowledge that so far he has given three different estimates of the revenue gain to the Government from the imposition of an assets test? Does he recall telling the Senate on 25 August that the figure was about $ 200m, which had increased to some $300m by Question Time yesterday and which then fell to some $250m by the time of the Minister's interview on Nationwide last night? When will the Minister provide a firm or consistent figure? Is not this financial vagary just another example of the ad hockery which has typified the Government's confused approach to this very sensitive area? Senator GRIMES —I have stated quite clearly in this place that to give an actual dollar figure of what will be saved is not possible because we have no real idea , since the assets test was abolished, of the exact asset holdings of people likely to be affected. The best estimate, from the Department of Social Security is between $200m and $250m and I understand that the Department of Veterans' Affairs estimates a further amount of more than $50m. If I am wrong Senator Gietzelt can talk about it. When I spoke about $250m to $300m I believe-I think the record shows this-I was talking about the amount of money saved by both my Department and the Department of Veterans' Affairs. If it will make Senator Crichton-Browne sleep any better at night, I will say that the estimate is between $200m and $300m. I do not pretend that that is an accurate estimate. It is probably as accurate as some of the estimates made about the products of some mining activities in Western Australia. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. I ask the Minister: In that case why, on three separate occasions, has he given three separate figures which varied by a hundred million dollars? Senator GRIMES —The three separate figures which worry Senator Crichton-Browne were, I think, $200m approximately, which was the lower estimate by the Department of Social Security; between $200m and $250m, which was again, on another occasion, an estimate of the Department; and between $250m and $300m which, if Senator Crichton-Browne looks at the record, he will see was a combined estimate by my Department and the Department of Veterans' Affairs. If this is a matter of great moment and causes Senator Crichton-Browne not to sleep , I apologise. I do not think it is of great moment to most reasonable people in this country. Senator MAGUIRE —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Treasurer . A statement from the Local Government Association of South Australia in yesterday's Adelaide News stated: The Federal Government had broken an election promise with its reduced funding for local government. Has the Minister seen that statement? What funds are provided in the 1983 Budget for local government? What further initiatives does the Government propose in respect of local government financing? Senator WALSH —My attention has been drawn to that report. Of course, it is not correct that any election undertaking about local government funding has been broken. Commonwealth payments to local government come from a number of sources, the best known, probably, being the income tax sharing arrangements. There has been a small but, nevertheless, real increase in funds provided to local government under those income tax sharing arrangements in this financial year as compared with the previous year. Senator Archer asked a question about that yesterday. Senator Watson —This is an identical question and should be ruled out of order. Senator WALSH —It is not the same question at all. Funds are also provided under a number of other Commonwealth programs. In total, this financial year payments to local government will be increased by $307m, which represents a 45 per cent increase on payments in the previous year. The Minister for Territories and Local Government announced last month that there would be a comprehensive inquiry into the funding of local government. That is one of the additional initiatives which the Government has in mind. In closing, I say that the reason the tax sharing related payments to local government increased at a slower rate than in the previous year is, of course, directly attributable to the enormous depression which the previous Government inflicted upon the country and a consequential decline in taxation revenue, those payments being directly related to such revenue. For example, in the year ended June, real gross domestic product fell by 3.9 per cent as against the previous June. That sort of shrinkage, that sort of contraction of the economy, which incidentally was the only full year contraction in the economy since the depression of 1961, the only full year in 22 years in which there was a real decline in GDP-a decline of nearly 4 per cent-had very substantial influences on tax revenue and therefore on payments to local government from the Commonwealth under the tax sharing arrangements in this financial year. I stress again that there has been a 45 per cent increase in total payments from the Commonwealth to local government in 1983-84 as against 1982-83. In view of a number of disturbing pieces of information that have come to the attention of the Government, in particular the degree to which some State governments have progressively reduced their funding to local government as the Commonwealth has accepted a greater responsibility in that area, and for other reasons, the Government has decided and the Minister for Territories and Local Government has announced that a comprehensive review of the financing of local government will be undertaken. Senator MACKLIN —I refer the Minister representing the Treasurer to the fact that Australian wine is exempt from sales tax. Is the Minister aware that the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation has decided that wine produced from Australian tropical fruits is not exempt from sales tax? Can the Minister give any reason for such a decision? Will the Government support an amendment to the Sales Tax Act when it next comes before the Senate so that Australian tropical fruit wine can be placed on a par with grape wine? Senator WALSH —I am not sure whether Senator Macklin is proposing that the Government should move to impose a sales tax on wine or to remove the sales tax which has been applied to drinks produced from tropical fruits, apparently by a discretionary decision made by the Commissioner of Taxation in interpreting the Act. I will refer the question to the Treasurer. I add that some people might see the discretionary decision of the Commissioner as being anomalous with the application of taxation rules in other areas. I do not propose to pass judgment on that. I do add that there are a number of anomalies in the sales tax and other taxation Acts and that this Government, although it has been in office for less than six months, has already moved to remove a number of those anomalies. I will convey the question to the Treasurer for consideration by the Government at some future time. Senator COLSTON —I direct a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Has his attention been drawn to the editorial in the June 1983 issue of the New South Wales edition of the Business Bulletin? Was there any justification for the editorial heading: 'Don't Buy Australian Says Federal Government'? Has the abolition of the tax rebate on the first $1,000 of dividend income had the dire effects predicted by the Business Bulletin? Senator WALSH —I do not think it would be fair to say that the publication to which Senator Colston has referred is disreputable, but it is an inconsequential publication and the conclusion it reached is absolutely wrong. The Government, in making its decision to remove the pre-election stunt cooked up between them by the discredited former Treasurer and Prime Minister, that is, to exempt from income tax the first $1,000 of dividend income-- Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. The Minister began answering the question with a quite defamatory remark against the publication referred to, and under the cover of privilege. He then went on to refer in his usual way to the previous Government. He has wasted a great deal of this Question Time and I ask you to call him to order, Mr President. The PRESIDENT —I ask the Minister to make his replies short and to the point because a number of people want to ask questions. I believe that the Minister is not out of order in his remarks to date. Senator WALSH —That was one of the decisions announced by the Government in the May statement. I was directly associated with that decision and I certainly do not resile from it at all. Of course it has not had the dire consequences which this inconsequential publication claims that it has. It was one of those measures which the Government took in the knowledge that hidden expenditures, which have come to be known as tax expenditures, of the type which proliferated under the previous Government were enormously costly to the revenue and therefore imposed greater tax burdens on all pay as you earn taxpayers. As an industry assistance measure or an investment incentive measure it was also quite ineffective. For all of those reasons-that it was inequitable, that it was ineffective in achieving its stated purpose, and that the Government had inherited a chaotic financial situation from its predecessor-the May decision was made and has been completely justified. Senator DURACK —My question is directed to the Minister representing both the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Defence. I refer to a proposal made recently by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, that Australian defence forces should begin to make their presence felt on the western reaches of the Indian Ocean, along the east coast of Africa. How does the Government reconcile the Foreign Minister's proposals with the cuts that have been announced in the Budget for the joint defence exercise, known as Kangaroo '83, off the Pilbara region of the Western Australian coast? Would not the increased expense involved in the proposal for a presence in the western region of the Indian ocean prejudice the already great necessity for increasing defence resources on the other side of the Indian Ocean, namely, the west coast of Australia? Senator GARETH EVANS —In raising the question of Australia's policy towards the Indian Ocean area the Foreign Minister did take pains to emphasise that Australia had key interests involved in that region. Activities there by Australia, whether in the form of aid or naval visits or at the diplomatic level , clearly need to reflect in an organised way our own independent role as a major littoral country. We can do this, as Mr Hayden emphasised and despite what Senator Durack has said, with only modest expenditure. We can increase our capacity to exert influence in this very important region, which is contiguous to Australia, without spending a great many dollars. The point made by Mr Hayden in addressing himself to this issue is that Australia, while acting in its own self-interest, would also be playing a valuable role in support of broader Western objectives in an area which is of vital concern because of its oil producing capacity, its trade routes and its potential obviously to threaten international peace and security. Australian naval visits to Indian Ocean countries have been taking place for a number of years. It is the view of this Government that those visits are well regarded and do serve a valuable foreign policy purpose. Subject to financial considerations- we will certainly be taking into account the sorts of points Senator Durack has made-and subject to further discussions within the Government, it is the view of the Government at the moment that such deployment should continue in a manner which is consistent with Australia's broader objectives in the region. Similarly, it is the view of the Government that there is scope for us to sharpen the focus of our aid effort to east Africa and to the island states of the Indian Ocean. Australia has a number of important interests in this area which justify this concern. The position that Australia has taken and our support for arms limitation and nuclear non-proliferation indicate that. As Mr Hayden has indicated, we would support the convening of a conference to discuss the Indian Ocean as a zone of peace should a consensus emerge at the United Nations. For all these reasons and in that context I believe, and the Government believes, that the emphasis that Mr Hayden has given to this issue should be understood by the Opposition rather than being subjected to the kind of sniping we have just had from Senator Durack. Senator DURACK —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. The Attorney- General has not answered the specific point I made. How can this added expenditure, which he concedes may be modest, be reconciled with the cuts in the Budget for Kangaroo '83? Senator GARETH EVANS —Nothing that Senator Durack has said in any way detracts from the force of the propositions I was advancing. Kangaroo '83 is to be perceived as a totally separate exercise. It has to be justified and the expenditure for it has to be justified in its own terms in the Australian defence effort. We are talking here about foreign policy initiatives, some of which would involve naval visits in the whole of the Indian Ocean area. Senator Durack might perceive a connection that exercises his brain cells and hormones but it is not one that moves me. Senator Button —I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. Senator Missen —Mr President, I rise on a point of order. Having risen in my place for four days straight without having been called- Senator Robert Ray —I did six days once. Senator Missen —Some of us get a most curious feeling in this place. I want to know on what basis questions are being called in this House when one has to go for four days without being called. The PRESIDENT —I have seen people rise and I have given the call to them as they have risen. I have also given the call in relation to the number of questions that honourable senators have asked previously. I know that Senator Missen is in that category as are others but a time limit is involved and I cannot do anything about that. Senator Missen's problem today will be taken into account in any future calls. Senator GARETH EVANS —Yesterday Senator Chaney asked a question of both Senator Walsh and myself concerning the progress on discussions relating to the seabed boundary between Indonesia and Australia in the light of the recent oil find at the Jabiru No. 1 well. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following information which I now give to the honourable senator and to the Senate. Sea bed boundary agreements with Indonesia were signed by Australia in 1971 and 1972. These agreements determined the boundary in the Arafura Sea and in the area south of West Timor. The boundary further west was left for later talks. A gap was also left in the boundary south of what was then Portuguese Timor. Before a boundary agreement could be reached with Portugal, East Timor was incorporated into Indonesia. Between 1979 and October 1981 four rounds of discussions were held between Indonesia and Australian officials to consider, amongst other things, drawing a boundary in the area of what has become known as the Timor Gap. However, these discussions were inconclusive. We are ready to hold further rounds of discussions as soon as the Indonesian side is ready. I understand that the Jabiru No. 1 well is located on the Australian continental shelf to the south of, that is, on the Australian side of, the 1972 agreed seabed boundary with Indonesia. Indeed, Senator Walsh made that point yesterday. It is therefore to the west of the Timor Gap area, and should not be relevant to the continuing discussions on the Timor Gap. Senator WALSH —May I add one additional fact to what Senator Evans has stated. As I said yesterday, the Jabiru well is outside the disputed area. I have since been advised that it is some 200 kilometres from the disputed area. Senator Chaney —There is a renewed interest in the whole area of exploration. Senator WALSH —Yes, several. Senator RYAN —Yesterday Senator Martin asked a question relating to an article which appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald commenting on the proposed appointment of Phillip Adams to the Australian Film Commission. I am now in a position to provide the following information in answer to Senator Martin's question: Sir James Cruthers, the present Chairman of the Australian Film Commission, has indicated to the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment his intention to resign from that position. In the light of this, the Government is considering the appointment of his replacement. Honourable senators will be aware that the appointment of the Chairman of the Australian Film Commission requires Executive Council approval and it would be therefore improper to make any comment prior to the Council's approval. I assure honourable senators that no consultation has taken place between Mr Adams and this Government regarding recent amendments to the taxation incentives provided for the Australian film industry. Turning to Senator Martin's other specific question, the answers are, seriatim, no, no, yes and in part. Annual Reports The PRESIDENT —Pursuant to the provisions of the Public Service Act 1922 I present the annual reports of the Department of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff for 1982-83, the Department of the Parliamentary Library for the period 1 January 1982 to 30 June 1983 and the Joint House Department for 1982-83. The reports which I have just presented on the operations of the Department of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff, Department of the Parliamentary Library and the Joint House Department for the year ended 30 June 1983 have been required by the Public Service Acts Amendment Act 1982. Department of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff The Department of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff has provided a reliable service throughout the year, not only to the two Houses of the Parliament but also to parliamentary committees. The Department continues to be involved in studies being undertaken for the establishment of an information storage and retrieval system for the Parliament. Computer technology and its application to parliamentary reporting are under close study by the Department with the prospect of improved services to members of parliament in the near future. Department of the Parliamentary Library The Library's report is in two parts. The first, reports on activities in 1982 and completes a series of calendar year annual reports which commenced in 1978. The second section reports on the period January to June 1983 and contains a number of statistical tables expressed in financial year periods which will be the form used in future years. Demand for research and information services from senators and members continued at a high level during the period covered by the report. Planning for the New Parliament House and the introduction of new technology is being actively pursued and is likely to lead to a period of change for the Library which will be reflected in the years ahead. I take this opportunity to draw the attention of honourable senators to the retirement of Mrs Bobbie Sluyters in June of this year on medical grounds. Mrs Sluyters had worked in the Parliamentary Library for nearly 20 years and gained wide respect from senators and members. Her name is particularly associated with the Current Information Service and her energy and helpfulness to senators and members deserves to be noted. I know that honourable senators would wish me to express on their behalf our best wishes to Mrs Sluyters for a recovery in her health and a happy retirement. Joint House Department I am also pleased to table the first annual report prepared on the operations of the Joint House Department. As well as providing services for this provisional Parliament House the Joint House Department is involved, to a significant extent, in the planning and development of services and facilities for the new Parliament House and references to those responsibilities occur throughout the report. I commend these reports to the Senate. Debate resumed from 7 September 1983, on motion by Senator Harradine: That the Senate take note of the papers. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(3.10) —When this matter was called on yesterday there was some comment on it from Senator Harradine, Senator Macklin and me. I had only a short time to comment on it and wanted to add a few words. I propose to do so now. I was opening up the fundamental problem that has been revealed to us by the decision of the High Court of Australia in the Tasmanian dam case. That case has now fully revealed, I think for the first time, the enormous Executive power which is held by the Commonwealth Governemnt in its negotiations for and ratification of treaties. Under our system of government, following the British precedent, it has always been traditional that treaties are a matter for the Executive Government and not for the legislature. By and large that worked quite satisfactory when the domestic implementation of treaties, or the power to implement them in domestic law, was used very carefully and cautiously. But in view of the situation revealed in and the history of the Tasmanian dam case, it is now quite clear that the power to enter into treaties enables the Executive Government to arrogate to itself enormous new powers, powers which it adds to the legislature. In other words, by the Executive act the Federal legislature gains tremendously new powers at the expense of State parliaments. The problem that we can have is that, by entering into treaties without reservations in regard to the powers of State parliaments and without regard to other limitations in the Constitution of Commonwealth powers, an international obligation is entered into. It is clear from the High Court decision that it takes a very broad and generous view of what is an obligation under international law. I would have thought there were very serious doubts about whether the particular treaty in the Tasmanian Dam case did create such obligations, but the High Court held that it did. Therefore, the power of this Parliament is pre-empted. When the Government has entered into treaties and acquired those obligations it can come into this Parliament and say: 'Look, we have this international obligation and we are required to give effect to it'. Therefore we should use this constitutional power that we now have and give effect to it. It can do that despite the fact that there could be a very considerable change in the traditional balance of power under the Federal system . It is clear that this Parliament now has to take a much closer interest in negotiations for treaties, certainly before they are ratified, and also in the question of ratification. The time has come when new and greater interest by the Parliament is required. We will have to give a lot more thought to it. I know that Senator Harradine has already proposed a parliamentary committee and is talking about introducing a Bill. I hope that honourable senators will take a very live and close interest in proposals to do something about this very serious situation which has arisen as a result of the Tasmanian dam case. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(3.14) —I am glad to be speaking today because I must admit that, if I had had to speak yesterday, I would have been very short of breath after Senator Durack's contribution yesterday in which he criticised the Government for giving information but not giving enough. In fact, in the previous Parliament, we only had a one-line operation. I find it very difficult to sit here and listen to some of the hypocritical statements made about what goes on in this place when one considers what happened under previous governments. However, I believe that there ought to more material. I have taken some interest in this because of concern in the community. I have done some totalling up and so far have found that under the Fraser Government-my survey is not yet complete-105 bilateral treaties and 92 multilateral treaties were signed and ratified. Not once during all that time was there any noise from members of the then Government about treaties having to come to this Parliament. I support very strongly- Senator Walters —For heaven's sake be honest. Senator MACKLIN —Senator Walters had her chance when in government and did absolutely nothing. She is making a statement again. She makes pious statements in opposition but said nothing while in government. The Parliament ought to have more say about treaties. I for one believe that the Senate ought to have an integral role similar to that of the Senate in the United States of America. I refer not so much to bilateral treaties because most of those are at a level of operationalising policies in terms of double taxation and other administrative details. But I believe that the multilateral treaties are of distinct importance in policy terms to this Parliament. I believe that the tradition of their having been exclusively the role of the Executive Government ought to cease and that they ought to become part of the legislative role. However, that will have to be a developing debate in this country and I am pleased to see, for whatever reason , that that debate has started. I hope it will be constructive so far as the type of role the Parliament can contribute to policy making in these areas is concerned. I hope we will not have a reiteration of the types of statements made already about this matter. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(3.17) —I wish to speak very briefly about what has been said because I think perhaps it is less than an accurate description of the history. Details of international treaties and conventions entered into by Australia have been made known to the Senate and the detail of such treaties and conventions have been available to honourable senators to debate. What has now happened is a desirable further development. For the convenience of honourable senators, a summary is provided and this saves them the time of reading the original treaty in order to be able to sort it out. I do not think it is fair to criticise the former Government for failing to make information available when in fact, without any obligation on it to do so, it followed the principles of, firstly, consultation with the States on any treaty before entering into it and, secondly, of tabling in the Senate, as a Senate procedure, information of the fact of the treaty or convention and the document itself so that it could be made the subject matter of debate. I support the idea of further consideration and debate of treaties and I think we are processing a desirable development. I would like to see the process taken considerably further, but that is a personal view which may be shared by some honourable senators and not by others. In the light of what Senator Macklin said , I make the comment that, while agreeing with his general principle of more discussion about these matters, I do not think he was entirely fair either to the previous Government or, in particular, to the former Attorney-General. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(3.19) —I wish to speak only because of the complete inaccuracy and unjust remarks of Senator Macklin. I agree that more consultation should take place. Senator Macklin accused us of not having said anything when we were in government. That was purely and simply because at no stage did our Government ever attempt to usurp the powers of the States as has the present Government. Senator Macklin —It signed the treaty on conventions. Senator WALTERS —Of course it did, but it did not take Tasmania to the High Court of Australia. The previous Government said that it would never use the external affairs powers. It said that if our State wanted to dam the Franklin then it could dam the Franklin. It did not use the external affairs powers. It used the external powers on exports. It has never used the external affairs powers as the High Court has now interpreted. For Senator Macklin to stand there and misrepresent the former Government in the way he did is nothing short of hypocritical. Government senators-Oh! Senator WALTERS —Members of the Government are trying to ridicule this. Senator Grimes —Oh! Senator WALTERS —Senator Grimes will know that the feeling in Tasmania has not abated. Senator Grimes was not game to have a public meeting in Queenstown. He took his leader down there. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Walters, you are getting away from the subject. Senator WALTERS —I am talking about the treaty that took away the State powers. I am merely pointing out that the result of the Government's usurping the powers of our State has landed the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, in a situation where, when he took his Leader down to the west coast of Tasmania last week, he was not game to have a public meeting. He was not game to go out on the Crotty Road to visit the men doing the work. He slunk in and walked up the streets. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was kissed by three women in Queenstown and we were told that this was a warm welcome. The people of Queenstown kept off the streets. The only people who did appear wore black arm bands. The Warden invited the people along to a reception, the majority of whom refused the invitation. The ones who did go wore black arm bands. Senator Grimes says that I am incorrect in saying that the feeling in Tasmania is still very high on this issue. He knows darned well that he is not game to go down the west coast or call a public meeting. He is not game to go out on the Crotty Road, nor is Senator Tate nor are any of the other Tasmanian senators in the Government. We have only to look at the popularity of the Government in Tasmania at the moment to know that if an election were held now we would not have one honourable senator from Tasmania sitting in the Government. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Before calling the Attorney-General I remind him that I have allowed a wide-ranging debate to take place. I would be grateful if he would return to the subject of treaties. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(3.23) —I have every desire to return to the sober consideration of the matter which is before us; that is, the way in which this Parliament should deal with treaties. I rise for one purpose only, that is, to scotch the canard which is running once again in this place that something dramatically new happened to our constitutional law with the decision in the Tasmanian dams case so far as the external affairs power is concerned. The truth of the matter-for anyone with an ounce of literacy and understanding of Australian constitutional laws-is that since 1936 and the Burgess case it has been perfectly clear that the external affairs power will be construed by the High Court of Australia, in an appropriate case, to enable the Parliament to legislate for the domestic implementation within Australia of an international treaty obligation. That much has been clear. Senator Walters —You tell that to Justice Gibbs. Senator GARETH EVANS —If Senator Walters did Mr Justice Gibbs the courtesy of reading his judgment she would clearly appreciate that Mr Justice Gibbs has acknowledged that that is and ever has been the state of the law, at least since 1936 when it was clearly articulated by the High Court. There is a question as to how far the external affairs power reaches, but there is unanimity in the High Court. Since the 1930s that power has been available, in an appropriate case, where there is a genuine international obligation. Equally, there is unanimity in the High Court that treaties cannot be used as a mere device, artificially, to attract legislative power to the Commonwealth in situations where that power would otherwise be lacking. It is a matter of looking clearly and carefully at the treaty obligation in each case to determine whether it is a genuine external obligation for Australia. That principle was articulated as far back as the 1930s. That principle was affirmed in the Koowarta case last year and in the dams case this year. Successive governments of all stripes and colours have from time to time relied upon the external affairs power as sole or supplementary legislative support for important pieces of legislation. When, in 1975, the Labor Government introduced the Racial Discrimination Act based on the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, it was not opposed by the then Opposition on any ground associated with the use of the external affairs power. In fact, that legislation was passed finally unanimously by this chamber. There have been plenty of instances of legislation being passed in the last seven years in which there has been a reliance on the treaty power. Senator Chipp —Narcotics is one example. Senator GARETH EVANS —Narcotics is one example, and there is legislation about migratory birds, certain technical and scientific matters of one kind or another and environmental matters. There is no fundamental point of principle in issue here. There might be between individuals in this place, but certainly not as between the major parties in terms of their performace over the years. The hysterical nonsense that is peddled and perpetrated by people such as Senator Durack, who ought to know better, is, I believe, to be deplored. The present Labor Government's exercise of the power available to it under section 51 (xxix) of the Constitution will only be exercised, as the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and I and others said in the aftermath of the dams case, sensibly and responsibly and in situations where there is both genuine domestic need for national legislation and where there are genuine international obligations which Australia must meet. We will exercise that power with due regard to those considerations-the international obligations and the reality of those obligations-and we will exercise it with due regard to domestic political sensitivities. We do not propose, and never have proposed, to use the external affairs power or the existence of treaty arrangements as a vehicle to stampede around the country doing things for which there is no justification other than a desire for legislative aggrandisement by the Commonwealth. Finally, I believe that our good faith in this respect and our desire to have openly and overtly on the table the details of the treaty arrangements into which we are entering is demonstrated by the way in which, for the first time in detail, the character of those treaty arrangements has been brought to the attention of the Parliament in the way in which the tabling has been brought forward on this occasion. Question resolved in the affirmative. PETROLEUM RETAIL MARKETING SITES AMENDMENT BILL 1982 [1983] In Committee Consideration resumed from 21 October 1982. The Bill. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(3.28) —I seek leave to withdraw the amendment moved by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) when the Committee last considered the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Amendment Bill. The amendment reads: Page 1, Clause 3, leave out the clause, insert the following clause: Restriction on operation of retail sites ''3. Section 10 of the Principal Act is amended by adding at the end of sub- section (3): 'and if the corporation does not take advantage of the power it has, in relation to the market for the retail sale of motor fuel, for the purpose of eliminating or substantially damaging a person, being a competitor in that market of the corporation or its agents or of a body corporate related to the corporation'.'' The Government believes it would be pre-emptive to proceed with the amendment at this time given the nature of an inquiry that is being undertaken to which I will refer in more detail in my speech. Leave granted. Senator TATE —I withdraw the amendment. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(3.29) —The Committee will remember that on 23 September last year I introduced a private member's Bill to amend the Petroleum Retail Marketing Act so that petroleum companies would be precluded by law from selling petrol at retail outlets. I remind the Senate that the companies involved are mostly multinationals-Amoco, Ampol, BP, Caltex, Esso, Mobil, Shell and H. C. Sleigh. The Bill passed the second reading and was in consideration by the Committee when the debate adjourned. At the time of the adjournment the present Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, as spokesman then for the Opposition, had moved an amendment which had the effect of negating my moves to ban petroleum companies retailing petrol and, instead, imposed the condition that companies, if they were to have assess to retail sites, not abuse their potential power in the market-place to damage other retailers. My Bill was not debated again before the election of 5 March. Through the forms of the Senate I was able to re-place the Bill on the Notice Paper at the stage reached upon the double dissolution of the Parliament-namely, second reading passed and in Committee, with Senator Evans's amendment, which Senator Tate has now removed, before the Committee. The Bill, minus Senator Evans's amendment, is now before the Senate. Because of the effluxion of time it is necessary for me to move, as an amendment: Clause 3, leave out 'and before 1 January 1983', insert 'and before 1 January 1984'. In moving this amendment I wish to remind the Senate of the effect that my Bill will have on the petroleum retailing industry. The effect of this Bill, with the new amendment, would be that after 1 January 1984 no exceptions to the overriding section 10 (i) would be permitted. That section states: A prescribed corporation- that means a petrol company- shall not operate a retail site. The history of this is that towards the end of 1980 the then Liberal Government introduced its petroleum retail marketing legislation but reneged on its undertaking, its firm promise, of 30 October 1978, when the so-called Fife package was announced-that oil companies would be prohibited from retailing petroleum through direct sales sites. The then Government decided that total divorcement was not necessary to achieve its objectives and that a reduction of about 50 per cent over a two year period in the number of retailing sites would be adequate. It has never been satisfactorily explained to me why a firm undertaking by a Liberal Government, that given on 30 October 1978, should have been changed a few months later almost 180 degrees the opposite way. There have been rumours of oil company executives boasting about how they got at the Liberal Government and of multinational oil company executives indicating that they were able to change the Liberal Party's mind and achieve that 180 degree about-face. However, there has been no satisfactory explanation from the Liberal Party of its change of mind on this issue. Each integrated oil group was allocated a quota of sites. The maximum number of company owned sites allowed under the 1980 legislation was 989 for the year beginning 19 September 1981. On 18 May 1983 this was reduced to 401 sites. The present Government amended the petroleum retail marketing sites regulations on 17 May 1983. The effect of this was to extend the current situation so that the number of sites will not be reduced to 401 until 1 January next. It is remarkable how political parties seem to accede, for reasons never stated, to the wishes of the multinational oil companies. The objection of the Australian Democrats is that that is always at the expense of the independent Australian owner, thousands of whom have been sent bankrupt by the multinational oil companies in the last five years. I understand that the entire structure of the industry is now being studied by an informal committee within the Department of Industry and Commerce and that a report will be forthcoming about the end of this year. There has already been a royal commission on the petroleum retailing industry, which released its findings in 1976. As a result of that report the then Liberal Government believed it was absolutely imperative to get multinational oil companies out of the retailing business so that they could allow the Australian battler some chance of survival. But oil company representations seem to make stronger impressions on political parties in this country than do royal commissions. Further studies of the industry will be of some value, but look at it as much as we will, the basic problem remains the same. The solution is offered to the Senate in the legislation before it with my current amendment included. The problem is the pre-eminent involvement of the major oil companies in petrol retailing. The existing legislation only goes half way. Oil companies are still involved at every level of output from production to retail sales. The oil companies are doing very well and are very happy with the existing arrangement. I ask members of the Australian Labor Party, the Liberal Party of Australia, the National Party of Australia and the independent senator here today, to contemplate the fate of the Australian independently owned service stations if the multinational oil companies are so extraordinarily happy with the existing legislation. The Democrats say that the only solution is to get oil companies out of petrol retailing. It is a solution that both the Liberal and the Labor parties in Queensland apparently endorse. Before I proceed, I challenge speakers from the Liberal and Labor parties who will follow me, because their remarks will be given the widest publicity in the Queensland media. A fascinating item appeared in yesterday's Courier-Mail: The Liberal Party had stolen Labor Party policies dealing with oil companies operating retail petrol outlets, the State Opposition-- the Labor Party- small business spokesman, Mr Milliner, said yesterday. Mr Milliner said the promise by the Liberal Leader, Mr White, to clean up the service station industry had been Labor Party policy for some time. I ask Senator Tate, who is to follow me, to explain whether it is Labor Party policy to get oil companies out of the retail business or is Mr Milliner, its State spokesman, telling lies? I believe it is an explanation not only the Senate but also the Queensland people ought to be given. The article continues: 'The about-turn by the Liberals on this is amazing,' Mr Milliner said. 'If they were so concerned, why didn't they do something about it when they were in government?' That is a fair question. The article continued: Mr Milliner said that just before the 1980 election, Mr White had addressed a meeting of service station proprietors in Brisbane where he promised to clean up the mess. 'But he forgot about it after the election,' Mr Milliner said. 'If the Liberals have not been able to achieve anything on a state level, why had they not approached the former Federal Liberal Government to implement the findings of the Royal Commission on Petroleum? I ask Senator Peter Rae, who will follow me for the Liberal Party in this matter , whether he or his Party has been approached by Mr White to clean up this mess, as Mr White promised in 1980. Mr Milliner is reported as concluding: 'It is Labor Party policy to free the operators from the restriction imposed on them by the oil companies.' This statement was made yesterday. Was Mr Milliner stating current Labor Party policy or not? I will not be impressed with Labor Party opposition to this private member's Bill on the ground that there is an informal inquiry and that we must wait until it is made public. As I said, we had a royal commission in 1976. This matter has been under intense study. One does not need an informal Public Service inquiry, which is a rather strange way of doing things, to elicit the truth about whether an injustice is being done to independent service station operators. The main reason why I believe the explanation, or the excuse, of relying on that informal inquiry should not be accepted is that we have already had a leak, either from that committee, from a public servant on that committee, from someone in the Minister's office, or from the Minister himself. I draw the attention of the Committee to an article entitled 'Revamp of petrol retailing likely', written by Ian Perkin and appearing on page 1 of the Weekend Australian of 3-4 September. The article states: Because the Department of Industry and Commerce committee has yet to complete its report, the likely restructuring recommendations are not known, but they are expected to include: A further reduction in the number of company-owned and operated services stations-the largest stations which dominate trading in most major capitals. I have an unbounded admiration for Senator Tate, but surely this is a matter to which a Minister should be able to respond. I want Senator Tate's advisers to give him an answer to a question. Did the Department leak information to the Weekend Australian that a likely recommendation of the committee would be for a further reduction in the number of company-owned and operated service stations rather than a phasing out, as well as three other suggested recommendations? The Government might say: 'Wait. Let us hold up this Democrat Bill until we have that report'. I would like to know now from the advisers to the Minister, through Senator Tate, whether in fact that is going to be one of the recommendations and why it was leaked. We will be pressing this matter to a vote today to ascertain how fair dinkum the Australian Labor Party is about removing multinationals from petrol station sites, and how fair dinkum the Liberal Party is. This Bill will ensure that the lessee operators and independent retailers are given a fair go in the future, that full competition is retained in retail petroleum markets, and that small business people are protected from the predatory pricing actions of the big oil companies. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(3.43) —I rise to indicate the opposition of the Government to the passage of the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Amendment Bill introduced by Senator Chipp. I think it is necessary briefly to outline the history of the matter. It has to be conceded that the previous Government introduced its petroleum marketing legislation in 1980-honourable senators will recall that the package of legislation was made up of the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Act and the Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Act-after a very careful consideration of the problems confronting the petroleum retail industry. That legislation was not hastily brought into this chamber. It was a result of careful consideration of the many matters to which Senator Chipp has quite rightly adverted. The sites Act required the major oil companies to effect a reduction of approximately 50 per cent in the number of direct retail outlets that they operated at 30 May 1980. This was substantially completed by September 1982. The amendment that Senator Chipp proposes would have the effect of bringing about total divorcement of oil companies from petrol retailing, and that would be a fundamental change to the intention and effect of the sites Act. It was quite clear at the time-- Senator Chipp —It was promised, though. Senator TATE —I understand, of course, that at the time of the passage of that 1980 package of legislation some degree of divorcement was considered necessary for the sorts of reasons that Senator Chipp has outlined. The trend towards vertical integration in the petrol retailing industry had caused concern due to its effect on independent small business in the industry. There was concern that increased vertical integration would have long term anti-competitive effects. The then Government was conscious that some oil companies might unjustifiably react to the Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Act by converting outlets from franchisee operation to company operation. The decision as to the level of divorcement then incorporated in the legislation was to some extent arbitrary. Of course, it was decided that a target of 50 per cent would be set. It was a question of deciding on a level which would achieve the then Government's objectives with the minimum practicable degree of intervention in the industry. The previous Government, I understand, did not believe that the complete divorcement of major oil companies from the direct operation of service stations was either necessary or desirable. It considered that the restriction of oil companies to a small number of sites in proportion to total site numbers would prevent any danger of excessive vertical integration or market power. At the same time, a possibly pro- competitive element is retained in the interests of consumers. In opposition we did not oppose the introduction of the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Act with its provision for 50 per cent divorcement. The divorcement decided upon in 1980 was phased in. Some companies had to convert the method of operation of a large number of sites. This needed to be done in an orderly and efficient manner and without disturbing existing contractual arrangements. But one major difficulty in the legislation has come to light. The Act has a wider than intended application to oil company agent operated depots where some fuel is retailed at the site. Pending amendment of the legislation to rectify this problem, the previous Government, as an interim measure and to avoid disruption in the industry, increased company site allocations to take account of depots. The increase is solely due to the need of companies to have quota cover for depots. The present Government has continued this practice pending amendment of the legislation, and I emphasise that. On 18 May of this year, and I think that this is of concern to Senator Chipp, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Button, announced a limited review of the petroleum retail marketing legislation following a pre-election commitment by the Government. The review is aimed at amending the legislation to clarify its operation and to overcome certain problems which have arisen. I think I can provide, insofar as it is within my power, an answer to Senator Chipp's question. Certainly the article from which he quoted purporting to indicate that recommendations had already been decided upon in relation to the outcome of that review is a total and absolute fabrication and certainly the information was not given to the reporter concerned by officials of the department most closely concerned in this matter. Apart from that part of the article which speaks of the undertaking of this review, the rest is a figment of the imagination of the author. The fact is that officials from the Department are in the process- Senator Chipp —Are you telling me that that is not true? Senator TATE —I am telling the honourable senator that it is untrue insofar as it purports to indicate that recommendations on a wide range of matters have already been decided upon by the Government and that the review, therefore, is of scope and character other than was indicated on 18 May by Senator Button. Officials from the department are even now in the process of consultation. They are consulting with the oil companies, certainly, but they are also consulting with operators of retail outlets, State government departments and other interested parties. All those who will be affected by this legislation should be consulted, and that process is being undertaken now. In the course of that review information on the effectiveness of the provisions of the existing legislation, including the level of divorcement, is being examined. Surely Senator Chipp will concede that it is quite proper, quite ordinary, common even, for a government within the first six months of taking office to make its own assessment, and its own review, of the state of the industry, the impact of the present legislation on that industry, and on the basis of a thorough review, having made its own assessment, then to come into the Parliament with its considered response to the situation. This matter will be brought back to the Parliament on the basis of the Government ensuring that a satisfactory balance is struck and maintained between the interests of consumers, service station franchisees, owner-operators, and the oil companies. The Government opposes Senator Chipp's amendment on the simple grounds that it believes it would be quite unreasonable to proceed in an arbitrary fashion before the review is finalised and without full consideration being given to the facts that might emerge in the course of that review. The effects of full divorcement on oil prices to consumers is subject to controversy. That is something we would have to be very aware of in coming to any final conclusions. I think also that Senator Chipp pointed out in the course of his remarks-it is very relevant-that excluding depots, which I referred to earlier, oil companies currently operate some 400 retail outlets out of a total of some 11,000 service stations in this country. We are not speaking of a large number. There has already been a very effective reduction in the numbers. Currently only 400 out of some 11,000 service stations in this country are operated by the oil companies. Senator Chipp —But that has helped the oil companies not hindered them, at the expense of the small person. Senator TATE —The oil companies opposed even that reduction in their retail site allocation. As I said, this occurred against the then wishes of the oil companies in 1980. In any case, I am trying to put in perspective that only 400 retail sites out of 11,000 service stations are currently operated by oil companies. On this basis, the proposed amendment, which seeks somewhat to jump the gun and bring about total divorcement before the review properly undertaken by the Government is completed, is opposed by the Government. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(3.51) — This matter has a fairly long history, to some of which reference has been made. When this Bill was debated in the previous Parliament on 21 October 1982 the then Minister for Social Security, now the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Chaney), said: To conclude, the Government-- he was referring to the then Government, the now Opposition- is opposed to the amending legislation which has been put forward by Senator Chipp. It does not believe that a requirement that on or before 1 July 1983-- I pause to say that Senator Chipp's amendment would make it the beginning of next year and that is appropriate-- there should be a total divestment by the oil companies of their remaining sites is a reasonable thing to impose upon them at this stage. The Government does not believe it is necessary to protect the competitive position or to protect the basic interests of retailers. Accordingly, we will be opposing the amending Bill . Earlier, he had said: So, in assessing how we should approach the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Amendment Bill introduced by Senator Chipp, we have a primary obligation to the consumers. A little later he said that he did not believe that the interests of the consumers required the total divestment of the oil companies of their interests in petrol retailing sites. He further stated: In this context it has the potential to bring about anti-competitive or non- competitive conditions. He also stated: I adopt one of the very substantial reasons put forward by Senator Evans for opposing this Bill. He was referring to the present Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans, who had spoken on behalf of the then Opposition, the now Government. I mention these points to make it quite clear who was saying what. Senator Chaney continued: The Bill proposes what I regard as a dramatically sudden divestment of the remaining oil company sites. There are a number of other comments such as: A very small proportion of petrol station sites are controlled by the major companies. That is a factor in determining the Government's attitude that there is not at this stage excessive vertical integration. Other points were raised by Senator Chaney. I am explaining why the Government at that time, the now Opposition, would not support the Petroleum Retailing Marketing Sites Amendment Bill 1982 introduced by the Australian Democrats. That position remains unchanged. However, bearing in mind that history, I will make some further comments. The matter of petrol retailing sites has a long history, as has been said already, I think, by Senator Chipp. In 1976 the Collins Royal Commission on Petroleum reported, amongst other things, on the petrol retail market. In general, the report criticised the dominance of the nine major petroleum companies in the retailing of petroleum and said that that oligopoly was causing unfair competition or rather, I presume, an unfairness in the lack of competition or in the nature of the competition. It criticised the discriminatory pricing and unfair dealing with dealers, particularly independent dealers, that is, those not tied to a petroleum produce. The former Government's solution was to seek a divorcement of sites, that is, a ban on the number of sites operated by major oil companies. In 1978 when it was announced that legislation would be introduced the Government wanted 100 per cent divorcement. That was subsequently reconsidered and, as has been said, the final conclusion was that a total divorcement was not necessary and that provision for 50 per cent divorcement would be adequate at that stage. This reduction took proper account of the commitment which some companies had made to this form of marketing. I think it would be appropriate to draw the Senate's attention to the fact that the commitment to this form of marketing by the various companies in Australia varies very substantially. There are some companies which I imagine would not be particularly concerned if this legislation went through. Other companies have very substantial investment in marketing retail sites and a very substantial part of their whole marketing policy is related to their participation in the retailing aspect. I well recall the efforts of the late Mr Phil Jelli of New South Wales, one of the original founders of the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia. He was a very active man on behalf of the interests of the service station proprietors of New South Wales and Australia. He had a long-standing devotion to this cause and put the case for the small person, the small man, the small operator against the big company. I think that in many ways the case put forward was extremely convincing. It pointed out that there were inequities, discrimination and times when individual operators were unable to obtain a reasonable deal, a fair go, in their negotiations with the oil companies. When an oil company both owns the site and is the sole supplier, it is quite obvious that the bargaining position is very unequal. It is that inequality of bargaining position which is a matter of very real concern to many people involved in the consideration of questions related to this industry. Is the inequality such as to create distortions and inequities? Are those distortions and inequities of such severity that their continuance is unconscionable behaviour in Australia? I trust that the further investigation-the Government has given an assurance that it is being undertaken-which the Department of Resources and Energy is undertaking of the success or otherwise of the operation of the 1980 scheme introduced by the former Government, will be carried out with reasonable expedition and thoroughness to ensure that it will be available before Parliament rises at the end of this year. If the Government is in a position to give an assurance of that nature-it is my understanding from inquiries which I have made that that should be possible-I imagine that a case can well be made out for waiting until that review of the operation of the 1980 legislation has been made available. I refer also to some of the other points which Senator Chipp made. He said that we have got all the information we need, we have had a royal commission, we have had this and we have had that. Senator Chipp —Seven years ago. Senator PETER RAE —There have been many changes since then. Not the least significant of the changes were the 1980 amendments and the 50 per cent divestment. But further and more important-reference has not been made to this point so far-is the fact that a number of State governments have decided to intervene in this field. A distortion of the operation of the system of petrol retailing throughout Australia has been created as a result of the separate independent intervention of State governments in limiting prices and imposing other forms of regulation in relation to this area of economic activity. There is no identity of approach between the States. In four of the States there is legislation; in two of the States there is no legislation. The legislation in the four States is not identical in its form and has differing effects and implications. That is a factor which needs to be taken into account by the Department of Resources and Energy when it considers the success or otherwise of the 1980 amendments introduced by the former Government in an attempt to overcome what were accepted as some of the distortions and inequities which were created. I believe it is extremely draconian to require virtual immediate 100 per cent divestment by the oil companies. The investment implications as well as the implications with regard to trade and marketing are significant. In the circumstances of the factors I have mentioned-that is, that State governments have intervened, there has been a variety of other distortionary legislative intervention in this field since 1980 and there is the action taken in 1980-it is reasonable now to say: 'Let there be continuation and completion of an assessment of the situation before any severe action is taken'. Anticipating that there will be forthcoming from the Government an assurance that we can have a further chance to discuss this matter, the Opposition would propose to continue to say that we will not support the carriage of the Bill at this stage. That is the position that we took in October last year. I would also say, in commenting on what Senator Chipp said about the oil companies being happy with the 50-50 situation, that that is not my understanding from discussions I have had with some of the oil companies. They are unhappy with a number of aspects. Certainly their operating profits for the past financial year indicate that very few of them would have smiles on their faces in relation to their operations of recent times. With regard to the Queensland situation, it is my understanding that an undertaking has been given by the Liberal Party with regard to cleaning up the service station situation. I cannot answer whether a request was made to the former Government. I would have to make inquiries but, since it has been raised, I can only say to Senator Chipp that I will make the inquiry and obtain an answer as soon as I can. If he then wishes that information to be given publicly in this chamber, then I shall do what I can to make it public in this chamber. I can do no more than make that offer. Senator Chipp —You are sounding like a Minister already. Senator PETER RAE —It will not take long, the way this Government is going, before I have the opportunity to change sides. I guess that, on my record, I am intended to be permanently on the front bench in opposition. That is not an unhappy situation as far as I am concerned; I just hope that the rest of the party has plenty of opportunity to be in government. Not only have the complications of pricing State by State created considerable questions, which have been raised by me and others in this chamber, but also I think the operation of the Petroleum Products Pricing Authority and the freight equalisation scheme are matters which need to be taken into account in the survey of this area because we have still, to me, the inexplicable situation of up to a one-third differentiation in price between the prices paid at the principal urban outlets, one State to another. Senator Tate would well know one of the States to which I am referring-our State of Tasmania-which experiences an inordinately high price most of the time. I well recall once having been in several States on the same day and seeing a more than one-third difference in the average price between the States. It seems incredible that that situation can prevail with the operation of the freight equalisation scheme. So one imagines that there are severe distortions being created by State legislation, amongst other things, and that these distortions will all be part of what will be reviewed. I hope, therefore, that not only will we be seeing a review of the operation from the point of view of the interests of the consumer, the small or individual independent retailer, the lessee retailers of the major companies as well as the oil companies themselves-that is, the total interests of all of those involved in the industry-but also that we will have a look at the forces which result in the huge disparities in price from State to State. If the review can give us some sort of reasonable answers to that as well, then I think it will have been well worth waiting for. Having expressed those thoughts, I indicate that the Opposition will seek and expect to receive the assurance that I have sought. Senator GEORGES(Queensland)(4.06) —I have listened to this debate as I have had an interest in this area over a number of years. I would like to express a point of view which might not conform with the point of view of either side of the chamber. I do not believe that the 1980 legislation worked. It was bound to fail . I think that what has been proposed by the Australian Democrats will also fail . The review to be undertaken by the Government must take a new approach. It is fairly obvious that forces are at work in the market-place, both in the refining of petroleum products and in their distribution. Those forces have to be properly understood and, if I might say so, properly controlled. This is now an urgent matter because in Queensland the distributors of petroleum products face bankruptcy due to the uneven nature of the pricing policy. I do not think the problem will be solved by divorcing the oil companies and taking them out of the market-place. The Australian Government needs to take the matter firmly in hand. It should consider this as a matter of national importance. It involves national conservation of an important energy resource, and it relates to certain defence elements as well. For that reason the Australian Government must look at taking to itself the power to control this source of energy. I believe it is necessary to move quickly to a position where we have a national corporation controlling the oil industry. That would take it out of the hands of the major oil companies and the major oil importers. Senator Messner —To nationalise the whole industry? Senator GEORGES —It is not a matter of nationalising the whole industry in the terms in which the honourable senator would put it. I know he would say: 'You are nationalising the industry'. I am saying it is an important area of energy that ought to be under the control of the Australian people. That can be done only through the Australian Government because of the variety of positions that the States take. I am not saying that we ought to do this without the co- operation of the States. I think we ought to come to an understanding with the States so that we have control over refining policies and can regulate the wholesale price. Varying wholesale prices are available to people in Queensland and that is distorting the market-place. Some have access to a good wholesale price; others do not. Really, the wholesale price has not been established. The wholesale price now set by the Petroleum Products Pricing Authority is not the price at which the petrol is sold. There is a variety of wholesale prices and a variety of price supports, and some have access and some do not. Those who do not, suffer. The sooner we establish a wholesale price for fuel and the sooner we determine that all shall have access to that wholesale price the better. The sooner that we rationalise freight charges up and down the coast of Australia the better because some people are at a disadvantage to others. We are trying to control this very important industry by partial methods. We will not succeed. We will succeed only if we set up a corporation to control the import of fuel and not allow some companies to take advantage of the spot markets overseas to distort distribution of petroleum within Australia. I believe that the sooner we reach that position the better. I trust that the review will take these matters into account. I also hope that the various political parties will accept that this is a national responsibility and that we have to deal with this matter with that national responsibility in mind. I say again that what happened in 1980 failed. What is proposed by this legislation will fail. I hope that the review will come up with an answer. There is, within the Australian Labor Party platform, a policy to set up a hydrocarbons corporation. The sooner we establish that corporation and take the industry out of the control of multinationals the better. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(4.12) —I will reply to some of the matters raised by honourable senators. In relation to Senator Peter Rae's contribution on behalf of the Liberal and National parties and, in particular in relation to the timetable-he was concerned that this review ought not go on endlessly-I am informed that it is hoped that the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) will have the results of the review by the end of October. Of course, the Government will then have to make its own decision as to whether further amendment to the legislation is warranted. It would then be a question of trying to find a place for such legislation in the timetable of the Parliament if it were thought desirable. Honourable senators will, I think, concede that the timetable already looks to be fairly crowded. Senator Messner —What about a debate on the report? Senator TATE —The review will be in the hands of the Government, one hopes, by the end of October. The Government will then make a decision, not only as to its own course as regards legislation, but also-I take Senator Messner's point-as to whether the substance of it ought to be made available for wider consideration in the general business community and amongst the various political parties which have an obvious interest in this mater. I must say to Senator Peter Rae that I cannot give any assurance that the scope of the review would be such as would enable the whole question of the pricing of petroleum products within Australia to be the subject of any recommendations or conclusions by those undertaking that review except, of course, insofar as competitive elements in the mix between independent owner-operated retail sites and company-owned retail sites would have an impact on the price of the product that would be offered to the ordinary consumer. But I believe that that is the extent to which this review will be able to take into account the question of the final price of a petroleum product to the consumer. Basically it is a review of those two pieces of legislation. To that extent it is confined to the question of the Petroleum Retail Marketing Sites Act and the Petroleum Retail Marketing Franchise Act rather than the larger questions which are, of course, quite proper for any government to consider. Senator Chipp raised the question of the Queensland election and the apparent decision by both the State Liberal Party and the Australian Labor Party to put forward a policy which would have an effect, insofar as it is within the power of State governments, on the operators within the retail market in that State. The Federal Government's decision to hold the review emanates directly, I suggest, from its pre-election statement on business regulation in which it indicated that whilst its policy is to restrict the involvement of the major oil companies in the retail market, it acknowledged in that statement on business regulation that there may be price competitive arrangements in permitting the major oil companies to have some share of the retail market. But this Government stated quite clearly that the involvement of those corporations must be restricted to protect small businesses operating in the market. That is the key criterion of that policy document. The object of the review then is to ensure that small businesses operating in the market are protected. To that extent, whatever decisions have to be taken in relation to the involvement of the major oil corporations will be taken. Indeed, as I said, this review is a direct fulfilment of that pre-election statement. I believe Senator Georges raised quite a different criterion for the Government to have before it in deciding on the proper mix of the involvement of the major oil corporations in the Australian market, not only in the retail market, but also in the refining and, indeed, the exploration in relation to petroleum products. I believe that in raising those matters quite properly, he has alerted us to the very real misgivings that are proper, I think, for any Australian to have about the dominance of companies which owe their allegiance, in the main, to overseas shareholders in relation to their activities in this resource which is so sensitive to Australia's development. As I said, this relates not only to the extraction of those resources from Australian wells but to the bringing in of the product from overseas, refining it and then distributing it throughout the nation in a way which is then, of course, crucial to the operations of businesses throughout the economy and, indeed, to the whole social life of Australia. But insofar as that is again a wider issue than is being undertaken in this review, the Government cannot say that the review itself will answer the sorts of questions raised by Senator Georges. Senator Chipp —You are sounding like a Minister, too. Senator TATE —I am doing a small apprenticeship here. The Government maintains its position that to accede to this amendment at this stage would be to pre-empt the review. I do not believe that it is reasonable to expect the Government, in its first six months of office, to put aside the opportunity to come to its own assessment of the facts and, on the basis of that assessment to bring legislation into this chamber. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(4.17) —I would like to pursue two points a little further. The first is whether we could be given some assurance that the Government will facilitate a debate in this chamber on the findings of the review because otherwise one could be led to have some doubts as to the basis upon which the Government proposes to deal with the review. I am not saying that I am seeking an undertaking that the Government will take any specific action. Obviously it would be unreal to say that it would introduce legislation or take any of the other actions to which Senator Tate referred. But I think it is not unreal or not unreasonable to seek an undertaking from the Government that there will be some discussion of the results of the review before the end of this session, that is, before we rise in December or whenever. That, presumably, will be something over a month after the report is completed, typed and made available to the Government for its consideration. My second point to which I refer while that further request is being considered is that I think it is only fair to say, on behalf of the petroleum companies, that I understand from discussions and observations that I have made that there has been a very significant and, if I can make a small pun, Australianisation of spirit so far as those oil companies are concerned. I find that most of them appear able, and claim that they are able, to act with a very substantial degree of independence as Australians, in the domestic interests of Australia, and that they have very substantial autonomy in their operations. I think it would be unfair not to mention, in view of some of the remarks that have been made about multinational or overseas companies, that observation from experience, for what it is worth. I look forward to receiving an assurance from Senator Tate that those companies will be able to hear a little more about this subject before the end of the session. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(4.21) —I think I have already indicated to honourable senators that the Government will have this review-it is a departmental review, though with the widest possible consultation with the industry and the State governments concerned-in its hands at the end of October. I do not think it is normal to enable any chamber of the Parliament to have before it the findings of a departmental review made for a Minister. I did say that I saw no reason why the substance of the review could not be indicated to the Senate in the course of some appropriate debate or discussion on the general topic. I believe that if such a debate were to take place, or some such discussion were to be facilitated , quite clearly Senator Button would have available to him the findings of the review. In the course of that discussion no doubt he would indicate the sorts of considerations which would lead the Government then to decide on appropriate legislation. That is as full an indication of the Government's desire to facilitate further discussion as I can give. I will certainly make known to the Minister, Senator Button, the request of Senator Peter Rae. Given the Minister's bipartisan support for our rejection at this stage of the Chipp amendment I believe he will wish to accommodate the honourable senator in that request. Senator PETER RAE(Tasmania)(4.22) —Before this matter is finally disposed of in this chamber I seek again to find out whether, in the same spirit as that in which I have tried to deal with Senator Chipp's request about the Queensland situation-I have just been out of the chamber for a moment to try to get some response-Senator Tate may himself be able to get a response and assure us that there will be a ministerial statement in one form or other in relation to this matter before the end of this session. I do not necessarily expect the actual report of the department, in the form presented to the Minister, to be made available-simply a ministerial statement on the subject before the end of this year. That is the formal request which I make to the Government. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(4.23) —Assuming that the advice that the review will be completed at the end of October is correct, I give the undertaking that the Minister will make available to the Parliament a statement along the lines that Senator Rae has requested. Amendment agreed to. Question put: That the Bill, as amended, be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 50 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 44 —— Chipp, D. L. Harradine, B. Evans, Jack Macklin, M. J. (Teller)Haines, J. Mason, C. V. J. Archer, B. R. Lajovic, M. E. Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Lewis, A. W. R. Bolkus, N. MacGibbon, D. J. Button, J. N. Maguire, G. R. Carrick, Sir John Martin, K. J. Chaney, F. M. McClelland, DouglasChilds, B. K. McIntosh, G. D. Coates, J. Messner, A. J. Coleman, R. N. Missen, A. J. Collard, S. J. Primmer, C. G. Colston, M. A. Rae, PeterCook, P. F. S. Ray, RobertCrowley, R. A. Reid, M. E. Durack, P. D. Reynolds, M. Elstob, R. C. Richardson, G. F. Evans, Gareth Robertson, E. A. (Teller)Foreman, D. J. Ryan, S. M. Georges, G. Scott, D. B. Gietzelt, A. T. Sibraa, K. W. Giles, P. J. Tate, M. C. Grimes, D. J. Teague, B. C. Hamer, D. J. Townley, M. Jessop, D. S. Walsh, P. A. Jones, G. N. Walters, M. S. Kilgariff, B. F. Watson, J. O. W. Question so resolved in the negative. Bill, as amended, negatived. Bill reported negatived; report adopted. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia) —by leave-I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: (1) That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders, and in order to enable the Standing Committee on Social Welfare to (a) complete its inquiry into children and youth under institutional and other forms of care, commenced in the previous Parliament and continued in this Parliament, and (b) undertake the inquiry into retirement income systems, which was referred to it on Tuesday, 6 September 1983, with the requirement that the Committee report on or before the first sitting day in August 1984, the Committee consist of eight senators, four being members of the Government to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, and four being senators who are not members of the Government, to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or by any minority group or groups or independent senator or independent senators. (2) That nothing in the foregoing resolution affect the appointments to the Committee of senators who are at present members of the Committee. Debate resumed from 24 May 1983, on motion by Senator Jack Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(4.35) —The Industrial Democracy Bill 1983 is the same as the Bill which was introduced by Senator Siddons and passed by the Senate in November 1981. At that time, the present Opposition, which was then in government, indicated that, although it had a basic sympathy with the ideals of employee participation which the Bill expressed, it could not support the Bill. In opposition, we are still of the same opinion. Before I elaborate, I should like to run through the background of the question which the Bill seeks to confront and through the record of the previous Government in this regard. As I said, the Opposition believes not only that increased employee participation in decisions in the work place is itself a goal to be sought but, perhaps more importantly, that it is a goal which it is important should be pursued through voluntary negotiations between management and the work force. Not only should discussions be entered into freely by the prospective parties; they should also be conducted at a level of individual enterprises and companies so that the most appropriate form of organisation of the enterprise could be found. One of the principal aims underlying increased employee participation is, after all, the creation of an environment within which both employers and employees can experience a greater level of job satisfaction. Such an end can surely be more consistently and easily achieved by voluntary approaches to the question rather than by legislation. In 1978 the present shadow Minister for Industrial Relations, who was a member of the Fraser Government, announced a policy of employee participation and the means to be used to work towards it as an important objective in the field of industrial relations. It was considered then, as at the time of Senator Siddons' s Bill, and indeed still today, that support for legislation to encourage higher levels of employee participation could not be given. The most cogent reason for that opinion is that employee participation is still at an early and experimental phase in Australian industry and any worthwhile contribution through the legislative process can come only when there has been some real experience of how such schemes would work in practice. It is simply not sufficient to transpose experiences in other countries, or indeed the limited examples in Australia of the Repco organisation and Fletcher Jones and Staff Pty Ltd, and apply them to every other Australian enterprise holus bolus. In government, we pursued an approach towards the problem in two broad elements : firstly, a process designed to facilitate discussions between employers and trade unions in order to develop programs and strategies; and, secondly, a rejection of a prescriptive approach which would simply draw up an overall plan of practices by all enterprises, regardless of size, complexity or particular circumstances. I believe that the Bill now before the Senate reveals its shortcomimgs since essentially it presents a ready-made off-the-peg scheme, with no room for manoeuvre or adaptation to individual circumstances by interested parties. There is, for example, no provision for the appointment to the Industrial Democracy Board of employers per se. The Bill calls for three members of the Board to be nominated by the Australian Council of Trade Unions, one by the President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, and three by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. On top of that, employer organisations can clearly expect to have problems with a structure of employee participation in which individual enterprises would have to accept a degree of control over their financial affairs, and even their day to day financial decisions, which would be highly impracticable. Beyond that, it is clear that there can be no single blueprint for employee participation which would satisfy or suit the financial structures of all enterprises which might be considering some from of employee participation. Section 20 of the Bill is perhaps most crucial in terms of financial administration for any enterprises that are governed by the scheme. While there is no need at this time to go into the finer details of the taxation incentives and so on suggested by the Bill, it is clear that the provisions of this section , because of their superfluous details, such as, for example, the insistence on separate monthly profit and loss statements for each group involved, would cause great and costly rigidities and would produce inefficiencies. Indeed, there would appear to be some degree of confusion in the minds of the proponents of this Bill since the Bill quite clearly refers to 8 per cent of the issued share capital of the enterprise, while there has been reference by Senator Jack Evans in his second reading speech to a figure of 14 per cent. But in either case, whether it is 8 per cent or 14 per cent, a totally arbitrary figure like this is , of course, clearly unsuitable as a starting point for the establishment of an industrial democracy scheme on any large scale. The Bill would also have the effect of preventing companies with fewer than 10 shareholders from even being put on the Register of Industrial Democracy Enterprises. This would deprive small companies-those most in need of them-of the tax exemptions offered by the Bill. While the Bill seems to be overly precise in the wrong ways, other sections of it are not sufficiently precise in spelling out the conditions which would be necessary to protect the rights of parties in industrial democracy enterprises. The Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills has pointed out that section 25 would have the effect of making the decisions of the Industrial Democracy Board to list enterprises in the register or, conversely, to remove names from the register final and conclusive and not subject to any right of appeal. Of course, registration by the Board would be crucial for an enterprise to obtain any benefits. On a more general level, the Bill pays no attention to the resources, skills and training needed to introduce such practices. It would be wrong to suppose that a magic wand, in the form of a Bill, whose consequences have not been thoroughly thought through, could be waved and that the result would be instant industrial democracy. The reality is that goodwill, effort and expertise are needed in great quantities. That is the only way that this will be resolved; not by legislation. The Opposition is opposed to the Bill for the reasons that I have outlined and, most importantly, because it seeks to impose a single form of industrial organisation on all enterprises which might wish to introduce a degree of employee participation. We believe that it is not only impracticable but also inequitable and unworkable. Senator COOK(Western Australia)(4.42) —The Government commends the objectives of the Industrial Democracy Bill 1983 introduced into this House by the Australian Democrats, but we will not vote for it because we oppose the means by which the objectives set out in the Bill are proposed to be realised. However, by introducing the Bill, a vital question has been raised about the industrial relations health of the country, and that should be acknowledged. I note from the remarks of the Opposition that their emphasis is that industrial democracy should emerge by voluntary means rather than from legislation. Certainly the Government has a view about the type of legislation that might be necessary but if it is left purely to voluntary means, as it has been until now, Australia will languish behind the rest of the world in the promotion of industrial democracy in the work place. That has been our record. To perpetuate that view would mean that we would fall further behind, and that is not desirable. It is our view that industrial democracy is vital and it is necessary to advance that issue broadly and on a basis on which it can take root and flower. When it does, not only does the work place become more humane and decision making more attuned to the needs of people as well as plant, equipment and profit and loss sheets, but also there are fewer industrial disputes and usually an accompanying increase in productivity and profitability for the companies. We do not argue for industrial democracy from the point of view that it should be seen only as a means of increasing profitability and productivity. It should be a means of humanising the work place. But, as we have said, while commending the objectives of the Bill, we argue against what is contained in it to implement those objectives. I hope to enumerate some of our concerns about what is involved in the Bill and indicate to the Australian Democrats, particularly Senator Jack Evans, who is arguing the case from their side, that we invite them to join the consensus in the community that the Hawke Government has created and add industrial democracy to part of that consensus so that the whole community can move forward in this regard. As has been pointed out, in the last Parliament Senator Siddons introduced a Bill on industrial democracy. At that time the present Government had a number of amendments but essentially supported the direction of the Bill. The Bill that has come forward this time is, as I understand it, an exact copy of the previous one. Our approach now is to say that the most constructive way of pursuing industrial democracy is to do it in a way in which the parties can be brought into a context of addressing the issue and developing for themselves the most appropriate form of industrial democracy in the work place. When the previous Bill came before us, the political and industrial context in Australia was vastly different. Then we had the Fraser Government which had one of the worst industrial relations records of any government that has ever graced the government benches in the Federal capital-a Government characterised by a confrontationist mentality and by a mentality of union bashing refined to a fine art by Mr Viner when he was Minister for Industrial Relations. That approach was rejected by many employers as well as by unions and, ultimately, on 5 March this year, by the electorate. In the climate of a government with no policy on industrial democracy and a hostile and divisive industrial relations approach, it was essential to support a positive initiative then being taken by Senator Siddons. Now the context is vastly different. I will point out four main reasons why I believe the intentions of the Democrats can be accommodated within the strategy of this Government. Firstly, the policy of the Australian Labor Party in its industrial relations platform sets out at division E a distinct and clear set of objectives with respect to industrial democracy. It is not appropriate here to quote all of those but, to make the point, it is perhaps necessary, given that they are consistent in many respects with the objectives of this Bill, to quote the introduction to the industrial democracy policy in our Party's industrial relations platform. It states: Industrial democracy is a natural extension of the democratic right of working people. The greater participation of workers in decisions affecting their working lives will lead to greater job satisfaction and will provide oportunities for the more efficient operation of enterprises. It is desirable for employers and employees to be encouraged to be involved in genuine industrial democracy projects which achieve a sharing of power and responsibility between management and employees within an enterprise or industry . These projects should be designed so as to allow for the special needs and features of the industry or enterprise concerned. The first point that I make with respect to our approach is that it is embedded in our Party policy. It is consistent in general terms with the objectives of this Bill and I believe that those concerned with this issue can take heart in the sincerity and genuineness with which the Government takes up this matter. Secondly, it should be mentioned, of course, that the whole thrust of our platform and our mandate is one of national consensus and reconciliation. In the spirit of the prices and incomes accord and the National Economic Summit Conference, we say that industrial democracy is congruent with those objectives, with that means of doing things and that philosophy endorsed by the electorate. We are moving in this sense to reflect our concern for conciliation and consensus in the work place by means of industrial democracy. Thirdly, and importantly, the National Labour Consultative Council, a tripartite council comprising employer organisations, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Government, and chaired by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, the Hon. Ralph Willis, has established the Committee on Employee Participation. On 29 August that Committee was advised by the ACTU that the Siddons Bill should come forward for a complete review so that some aspects to which the ACTU could not feel committed when that Bill was before the House previously could be examined and further considered and also so that provisions for alternative approaches to the development of industrial democracy could arise. That Committee has set down a number of points of view about the legislation which is before us which I will come to in a moment. The important point is that the Committee is now in the process of developing strategies as to what ought to be done in this area which it will recommend to the Government. The fourth point relates to merit. In this respect I find myself agreeing, although for vastly different reasons, with some of the remarks made by Senator Durack in his address a moment ago. In terms of industrial democracy the Bill imposes a prescriptive approach. That is the aspect of it which we find most difficult to accommodate. It is our view that industrial democracy, by the very definition of the words one uses, implies a situation in which one cannot say: ' This shall be the case'. Democracy is inconsistent with a dictatorial approach. Democracy requires a context in which people, through a process of power sharing , can make decisions for themselves. We cannot impose democracy. We must allow democracy to flourish. Therefore, on the fourth point in our general approach to the Bill, we say that for the obviously right reasons it pursues the wrong direction and mistakes a basic need to create the context for proper democracy within the work place by imposing a prescriptive approach. As I said a moment ago, the National Labour Consultative Council's Committee on Employee Participation has considered the Siddons Bill. The Committee has eight qualifications about it. It is as well that these are noted. The first point which the NLCC Committee makes-I remind the Senate that this is a body comprising employers, unions and the Government; it is a tripartite body, and these are views arising from tripartite consensus-is that the blanket approach proposed fails to acknowledge the individual needs and circumstances of the enterprise and its employees. According to the Bill, a register is to be created . If one turns to clause 20 of the Bill one can see what are the prescriptions for industrial democracy. Clause 20 (1), the introductory clause, states: The Board shall list in the register each enterprise which in the opinion of the Board exhibits a marked degree of industrial democracy in its structure and operations and substantially complies with the following criteria: . . . Four criteria are set out in sequence, but there are two immediate tests to qualify. One is that there must be a marked degree of industrial democracy and that, secondly, it substantially qualifies. Unless those two tests are met no relief by a tax method as proposed in this Bill about which we are concerned arises. It seems to us that that two-test introduction creates a strait-jacket which can strangle growing initiatives towards industrial democracy. The following four provisions place, in my view, an undue emphasis upon employee shareholding and profit sharing which, while admitted into the wide context of possible variance of an industrial democracy approach, are not, I believe, mainstream solid approaches that are likely to arise or should necessarily be given heavier weight than what could be a much more useful way of evolving an industrial democracy program. The second point which the NLCC Committee makes is that insufficient emphasis is placed on the need for joint development of practices at the enterprise level . That flows from the point I have just made. Thirdly, the Committee says that the provision of the benefit of reduced taxation to some enterprises at the expense of other providers of revenue could be questioned on equity grounds. Next the Committee states: The additional incentive of reduced taxation would appear to be unnecessary if the aims of greater efficiency and productivity laid out in the Bill are realised. The Committee adds: Attempts to qualify for tax deductions may become the basic aim of many enterprises, leading to the introduction of 'paper' schemes rather than the development of viable and meaningful forms of employee participation. We, as a Government, are concerned about any opportunities for tax avoidance. We are concerned that the real intent and real spirit of industrial democracy is able to flourish. It seems that by linking tax concessions to industrial democracy we open the possibility for those who have already indicated a ruthless initiative to exploit any tax loophole to try to develop paper schemes which are not meaningful but which perhaps can be pointed to as industrial democracy schemes by employers or companies. That argues against the spirit of what the Bill seeks to achieve. The NLCC Committee goes on: The membership of the proposed Industrial Democracy Board does not include employer representation. One must have regard to that because, clearly, the context of tripartitism is an essential context for industrial relations. Employers form one part of the triumvirate and, therefore, ought to be admitted to that decision-making process . Further the Committee states: It should not be for such a body to decide what is and what is not industrial democracy. Of course, it is referring to the Board. It continues: This is a matter for joint agreement within individual enterprises. That is the consistent thread of my remarks. It is no good having a superior body sitting in judgment on what constitutes democracy and what does not. Democracy is to be found by the practice of it in the work place in forms that can be evolved over time, and grow and become real. Finally, the Committee states: A complex inspection system requiring considerable resources would be required to check the legitimacy of new and existing applicants. Of course, the Bill does impose such a scheme. The NLCC takes the view that that is not a desirable development. The Committee on Employee Participation was well aware of the concern of the Australian Democrats about this legislation, but was worried about its contents and the way in which realisation of the objectives was to be achieved. I understand that the Committee decided-this may not yet have occurred; obviously it is a departmental matter-to issue an invitation to the honourable senator sponsoring this Bill to be included in the discussions of the NLCC Committee on Employee Participation that is addressing itself to the very issue to which this Bill addresses itself. I understand that an invitation to attend the Committee's November meeting will be issued. I think it can be clearly and reasonably put that there are very real concerns held by front line battered veterans of industrial relations about what this Bill contains. They are not condemnatory of it in a dismissive sense. It is an encouraging development. But the approach needs to be evolved within the tripartite nature of the NLCC and, of course, with the assistance, if such an invitation can be accepted, of the Australian Democrats spokesman. I wish to add my considerations about other aspects of the Bill. Firstly, with respect to the provision in the Bill relating to consultative councils, the system of election laid down excludes the union structure in the work place. I do not think it is desirable that such an exclusion prevail. In fact, it is much more desirable-it is healthy-for the union structure to be enlisted in the industrial democracy process and be the means by which employees can express their objectives and goals in terms of participation. If the Bill were to be enacted and such a provision were to apply we would set up in the work place two potentially conflicting structures-the consultative committee or council and the combined unions in the work place. What we are about is trying to find a means of bringing everyone together and not establishing a fundamental organisational conflict. I think that is an aspect of the Bill that would need consideration should it ever be taken further. The other aspect of this Bill which I think needs comment on, is that it excludes healthy, emerging forms of industrial democracy which are not contemplated by the structure of this Bill. In my experience companies which are involved in developing these programs do not particularly welcome being named, thus attracting attention in the media as something extraordinary. Therefore, without naming particular companies, I will simply say that I am aware of one, a mining company, which has been quietly working at developing an employee participation program, an industrial democracy program. It is beginning to show signs of remarkable success. My understanding is that already nine various tiers of hierarchical control in the company have been reduced quite considerably to five such tiers. Thus the process of decision making is brought closer to where most of the workers are employed, at the bottom level of the structure, and a proximity between management and employees is able to be achieved. The success of that structural alteration has enabled negotiations between various unions and management to emerge in provisions for multi-skilling and so on. In the normal run of company-union negotiations, that is an area of great difficulty and conflict, yet in the structure and context this company has been able to create it has emerged easily and with the approval of both participants in the negotiating process. The whole atmosphere of the company is one of a learning environment and encouragement for training. There is an understanding of the obligations of the company and its needs on the part of the employees, as well as an understanding by the company of its obligations and the needs of the workers. The reality that is emerging is that many of the workers are becoming more confident of participating in events, not only in the company, but also in the general community. Thus they are becoming more useful citizens to the community as well. I am aware of another company in what many commentators from an industrial relations point of view regard as the blighted iron ore province of the Pilbara. This company, despite fairly continuous disputes in other areas, has of late a remarkable record because it has wholeheartedly embraced the concept of industrial democracy. It has embraced that concept on the basis of recognising a need to supply the information to workers to enable them to participate properly . One cannot create a structure that invites participation without supplying the information necessary for informed, intelligent and meaningful participation. This company has taken that course and as well has encouraged its workers to train themselves more effectively to be better participants in the decision- making process. It is a process of evolving democracy and one that is an encouraging example of how best to handle industrial relations in an area noted for poor industrial relations. I note that in the second reading speech that accompanied the Bill remarks were made about practices of industrial democracy in overseas countries-Scandinavian countries, West Germany and Japan were mentioned. Certainly, those countries have a form of industrial democracy vastly more developed and effective than anything in Australia. In my maiden speech, in fact, I remarked that if one wants to examine how to improve industrial relations, one should look at countries with a tradition and heritage, a cultural background similar to our own and which have a better industrial relations performance to discover the difference between what those countries do and what we do in industrial relations. If we look at European countries, particularly West Germany and to an increasing extent France, we will find that what distinguishes their industrial relations system from ours, among other things, is a sophisticated employee participation industrial democracy approach to joint decision making. It is present there, absent here. The dispute level is low there, higher here. One can draw from that a salutary lesson, namely that Australia should at least catch up . In catching up we should not ape or duplicate the structures other countries have. We should put an Australian accent on industrial democracy. We should apply an Australian approach and evolve our own means of expressing it. That brings me to mention Japan. It provides probably the starkest example of a country whose procedures we ought not follow. Japan has a vastly different cultural context from Australia. It has a paternalistic form of management which involves quality circles and employee consultation. It also has life-long employment in the key major industries and thus complete job security. It is able to absorb vast technological change rapidly. However, the cultural context of Japan-the life-long commitment and loyalty of an employee to an employer and an employer to an employee-does not typify Anglo-Saxon or indeed Western society as a whole. Thus, we cannot select from the Japanese experience one aspect that appears favourable and compute that automatically as being applicable to Australia. We need to distil the principles that make the Japanese example effective and apply them in a way in which they are Australian and take on an Australian form and expression. I know that that is exactly what this Government is doing through the NLCC based on Labor Party policy and direction. That is a more appropriate way of proceeding than is provided in this Bill. However, I conclude by saying that the Australian Democrats are to be commended for raising the matter. The Bill brings the question to centre stage, which is important. Thus, the debate on how we go about achieving an improved level of industrial democracy is able to be joined. For the Government's part, we will vote against this Bill in the knowledge that we are developing such a program ourselves and we invite all parties in this Parliament to join in that development. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(5.07) —The Senate is debating the Industrial Democracy Bill 1983. It has the worthy object of encouraging the introduction of industrial democracy in Australian enterprises. As one who has supported industrial democracy ever since I was elected to the Senate in 1976 and for many years beforehand, I have been very interested in this Bill and its progress. However, despite its excellent object the Bill unfortunately does not fulfil its expressed purpose. As I listened to Senator Cook I could not help but agree with practically everything he had to say, not only about the Bill but also about industrial democracy generally. I could not help but think to myself what a great pity it was that in November 1981 when former Senator Siddons introduced this Bill someone in the Australian Labor Party, which was then in opposition, did not stand up and make that sort of speech. If the Labor Party in 1981 had joined with us in making those sorts of speeches about the Bill and in drawing to Senator Siddons's attention the defects of his Bill, it may very well be that the Bill introduced by Senator Jack Evans, an Australian Democrat, in this Parliament, instead of being identical to Senator Siddons's, may very well have been a Bill this Senate could have supported. Unfortunately, in 1981 the Labor Party, then in opposition, played politics with this Bill. It got Senator Siddons to agree to some minor amendments and then supported his Bill in an attempt to embarrass the then Government by playing politics. The consequence of that is that today Senator Cook has to stand up and explain to the Democrats why the Labor Party, now in government, will not support the Bill. Although it supported it in 1981 it will not support it now for the very reasons Senator Cook expressed today and which we expressed in November 1981. I turn now to industrial democracy and employee participation. Shortly after Mr Fraser came to government in 1975 he established a ministry of productivity. In due course a national employee participation steering committee, comprised of people from all sections of industry throughout Australia, was established. That committee produced a couple of reports. The first, published in 1979, was entitled 'Employee Participation-A Broad View'. Unfortunately that broad view seemed to have got lost somewhere in the quagmire of documentation which is produced in this Parliament and perhaps has not had the publicity around Australia that it should have had. The question 'What is employee participation? ' is posed on page 1 of the report. The following answer is given: A number of different terms have been used in discussions in this field, e.g. employee participation, worker participation and industrial democracy. Different meanings have been attributed to these by different people but the common thread running through them all is employees having a greater say in the decisions affecting them at work. That last sentence is absolutely vital and I draw it to the attention of the Senate. The whole object is for employees to have a greater say in decisions affecting them at work. The report poses a number of other questions, one of which is: How? That question is answered at some length. However, the first paragraph states: Practical applications of employee participation vary in the degree and scope of employee involvement in decision making, and will be appropriate under varying circumstances. They include situations where employees: are informed are consulted decide jointly with management decide themselves That is how one gets involved in employee participation. In this respect I would like finally to quote the following paragraph from the report: We believe that employee participation cannot be introduced through legislation but that it should be developed on a voluntary basis, in response to social and community trends and needs. That thinking is along the lines of what Senator Cook said, with which I certainly agree wholeheartedly. We cannot enforce employee participation by direct legislative means; we have to encourage employee participation or industrial democracy. That certainly can be done. I would like to draw attention to some books that have been written on this subject. I refer particularly to a book entitled Up the Organisation written by Robert Townsend and published by Coronet Books Hodder-Fawcett Ltd. A copy of the book, which I think was first published in 1970, is in the Parliamentary Library and I recommend it to anyone who is interested in worker participation. In particular I recommend it to employers and managers throughout Australia. The book is easy to read; it is light and humorous. It is sub-titled: 'How to stop the company stifling people and strangling profits'. The author talks about some fundamental models of management. According to the book, there are two models of management. The first is that which sees power as the means of achieving aims- management by power, by control from above. That form of management has been practised in the military services, the church and institutions of that nature for centuries. Some enlightened companies and managers are beginning to understand and, in fact, have been adopting, for decades, another form of management. That form of management encourages each employee to use his or her capabilities to the utmost, to take an active mental interest not only in tasks but also in what the business is doing and where it is going. People are encouraged to participate in their daily work, not to treat it as some menial task that has to be performed from eight in the morning till five in the afternoon without interest, whether that task be putting a wheel on a motor car as it goes along an assembly line or whatever. Employees are encouraged actually to take a mental interest in their work. It can be done. I draw attention to the report of a speech made by Mr Graham Spurling, the Australian Managing Director of Mitsubishi Motors Aust. Ltd, which appeared on 31 May 1982 in the Australian Financial Review. The speech was made at a seminar attended by Australian and Japanese businessmen. In that speech Mr Spurling drew attention to what Mitsubishi was doing in Australia. According to the report, he said: We believe that we have the highest levels of productivity in the Australian car industry and that we can make the best quality product. He went on to say: I am not a great advocate of high technology investment as the path to productivity and profitability, and it may surprise you to hear me say, neither are the Japanese. We in Australia are all too ready too look to capital investment as the panacea of our problems. The Australian manager is too prone to saying that technology is the answer to higher productivity. The defect in this line of thinking is that the result may be just to superimpose high investment on top of an inefficient structure, and when this happens the whole edifice may fall unless it is propped up with government protection . . . Low cost measures adopted by MMAL to improve productivity included use of a minimum inventory production line system . . . product designs to make the cars easier to build . . . quality circles to enable employees more readily to identify with the company's productivity and quality objectives. This had all been coupled with Japanese style techniques aimed at improving the trust between management and employees . . . These are the sorts of systems which can be introduced if company managers will only apply their minds to starting at the very beginning, as is indicated in this report entitled 'Employee Participation-a Broad View'. They should start, with selected staff, to introduce these forms of participation by their workers so that the workers will believe they are making a contribution to productivity. If that happens workers will start to get interested in quality control. They will also start to get interested in the company making a profit so that they can seek some advantage from that profit. In speaking about the Japanese, Mr Spurling said: Their philosophy is to get everyone, management and labour, working together to maximise utilisation of existing plant, and by so conserving capital your company is better able to ride out the highs and lows of business activity. Only when every other avenue has been explored do they look to new capital facilities for the answer to greater productivity. This comes only when they have exhausted all other means of improvement, better organisation and planning, better use of people, all the time tempered with mutual respect and understanding between manager and worker. Honourable senators will have understood from my remarks that I am talking about participation in management or participation in organisation, not participation in ownership, which is another aspect of participation that can be achieved. I have drawn attention previously in this Senate to a company in my district, Fletcher Jones and Staff Pty Ltd. Currently about 76 per cent of that company is owned by present employees, past employees and widows of deceased employees. That company was established shortly after the war by Sir Fletcher Jones, who is now deceased. He was a man of great idealism who wished to bring into his work force the men coming back from the Second World War as participants in ownership as well as workers in the company. When that company started off it was owned 100 per cent by Sir Fletcher Jones and has now reached the stage where the Fletcher Jones family owns only about 24 per cent of it. Of course, that means that the employee-shareholders could sell the company if they so desired. Participation in ownership has been done in other companies, and in many ways it is a desirable objective, as demonstrated by the Fletcher Jones group of companies. There are a number of ways in which this objective can be achieved. The United States has the Kelso schemes, the employees stock ownership plans, or ESOPs. The Labour Government in the United Kingdom in 1978 introduced an approved profit sharing scheme. This scheme enabled employees to become shareholders in their company and enabled the company to receive some tax benefits as a result of adopting such a scheme. I asked the Parliamentary Counsel to produce for me, as a private member's Bill, a Bill based on the United Kingdom Act, which was adopted and amended by the new Conservative Government in 1980. My private member's Bill is still in the pipeline, but one thing which quite appals me is that the draft Bill produced is 37 pages long. It is so complex that I am concerned that, when I get around to introducing it, it will receive short shrift by people who really cannot be bothered to sit down and read a 37-page private member's Bill. I mention to the Senate that that Bill is in the pipeline. I certainly recommend to managers and owners of companies throughout Australia that they look at these sorts of schemes. One of the problems has been that for many years the governments of this country have failed to do away with double dipping by governments in taxing dividends twice. That has been done to the great detriment of the companies of this nation. The companies have company tax imposed on them. They then declare a dividend in favour of their shareholders and the shareholders have to pay tax on that dividend. That is double dipping by the Government. The result of that has been, of course, that small investors have stopped investing in companies in great numbers other than for speculative purposes. Most of the investment by small investors in this country at present has some sort of speculative motive about it. The other main group which is picking up shares in the companies around Australia is life offices. This has been a great problem. Let me take as an example a company which establishes a shareholder-employee participation scheme. Such a company is faced with a situation in which if it declares a profit of, say, $100,000 to go to the employee-shareholders, currently it has to pay $46,000 to the Government out of the $100,000. That leaves the company with only $54,000 to go to its employees. If it were to declare bonuses in favour of those employees the company could declare the whole $100,000 for the employees' benefit. Of course, this is an enormous problem for companies such as the Fletcher Jones group, and schemes have had to be devised to avoid the problem of paying the Government twice. Having dealt generally with the two ideas of participation-participation in management of organisations and participation in ownership-I turn to the Bill. This Bill tries to achieve both objectives but, as has been mentioned by both Senator Durack and Senator Cook, it starts unfortunately from too narrow a base, that is, the base of the Sidchrome company which apparently has a successful industrial democracy arrangement. I congratulate that company for having such a scheme. The problem was that Senator Siddons, having seen the scheme introduced by his own company and knowing the way it worked, then produced a Bill which tried to arrange for every company in Australia to go along with the Sidchrome proposal. Unfortunately, the result has been a disaster. I have spoken to Mr Symons who is the Chairman of Directors of the Fletcher Jones group of companies. He was formerly a solicitor in the town of Warrnambool . He was my employer when I first went to Warrnambool. He subsequently joined the Fletcher Jones group as an employee and wound up as Chairman of Directors. He was the brains behind Sir Fletcher Jones's ideas about industrial democracy. He told me after examining this Bill that he would not be able to rearrange the Fletcher Jones organisation to become an industrial democratic enterprise within the meaning of this Bill. If that company could not be an industrial democratic enterprise within the meaning of this Bill, how many companies could be? He said that, as far as he could see, the Bill was impractical and impossible. He believed that very few companies in Australia, if any, would be able to comply with the intricate and complex details of the Bill. I mention to the Senate that Mr Symons made a submission on industrial democracy and participation in ownership to the Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System. That submission is incorporated in the Senate Hansard of 26 November 1981 at page 2677, and I recommend it to honourable senators for perusal. I turn now to the Bill. Clause 5 establishes the Industrial Democracy Board. That statutory authority, or quango, if I could use that word, would undoubtedly become one of the most dictatorial quangos that this country has ever seen established. The powers that the Bill proposes for that quango are almost unbelievable. It would have the power to determine finally and without any right of appeal which company is an industrial democratic enterprise and which company is not. There would be no right of appeal. If a company wants to become an industrial democratic enterprise, the Bill sets out a series of matters with which each company has to comply. I will give the Senate some idea of what they are about. Clause 20 (1) of the Bill states that at least 8 per cent of the issued share capital of the enterprise must be owned by a substantial number of employees of the organisation. There is no problem at all about this figure. That clause further states: . . . and such share capital has, in the case of a public enterprise, been allocated at an effective price at least 25 per cent lower than the market price of such share capital prevailing at the time of allocation, . . . What purpose is achieved by having that in this Bill? If that is what the company wants to do with its own employees, by all means let it do it. Unless the company complies with this, it is out right from the word go. Paragraph (b) states: the activities of the enterprise are carried out through autonomous working groups based on profit centres within the enterprise . . . Glory be! Do not the employers and the employees, the unions and management, have any right to sit down and work out how they want to run the company? No, they have to comply with this provision. They must have autonomous working groups based on profit centres within the enterprise. The Bill then goes on to define what that means: (i) such groups have not fewer than 10 and not more than 100 members, (ii) separate profit and loss statements are produced for each group on a monthly basis . . . They do not have to be produced on a quarterly, bi-monthly or weekly basis but on a monthly basis otherwise the company is not an industrial democracy. It continues: (iii) such groups cover every activity carried out by the enterprise, If a company has one delivery van somehow or other it has to have that delivery van included in a working group based on a profit centre, and that group has to comprise not fewer than 10 and not more than 100 members. It is no good having one delivery van, or perhaps a semi-trailer, which picks up the product and takes it to the railway station; some sort of industrial group has to surround that. There are no exceptions. The Bill continues: (iv) such groups make decisions on group production and cost objectives, production planning, purchasing, work allocation, appointment and termination of appointment of staff . . . All of these things may very well be desirable. It may well be that these are the arrangements that the company would work out with its employees over time. I am sure that the Sidchrome company does this-that is why it is in the Bill-and I am sure that it is a good thing. But it appears that the mere elimination of any one of those things would make that company not an industrial democratic enterprise. Clause 20 continues: (v) each group has a group leader . . . Some of the industrial democratic enterprises already in existence do not have group leaders. People alternate in jobs week about in order to create variety, and there may not be a group leader. This group leader has to meet the other group representatives. What does that mean? Does it mean that the company might lose its tax deductibility if for some reason or other he does not meet with other group representatives? Paragraph (c) states: a profit sharing scheme has been established in the enterprise, which takes account of profits before tax, in relation to total assets employed, of each group, and which distributes an agreed proportion of profits within each group to employees of the enterprise; I can see some merit in that idea but I cannot see that one should include it in a Bill as being absolutely essential to the existence of the enterprise. A consultative council has to have been established, and it has to operate in a particular way. The Bill gives six directions as to how that council has to operate. We then come to a board, and the board is allowed to determine further criteria. The board may list in the register a company if it complies with only three of the criteria if in the opinion of the board-it is an absolute opinion- the listing of that enterprise in the register is consistent with the purpose of the Act. Notwithstanding all of this, even if a company goes to all of this trouble to establish itself along these lines, the board still has a discretionary power to decline to list that enterprise in the register as an industrial democracy, on the basis of I do not know what but apparently the board might think these measures have just been introduced for tax purposes, such as those mentioned by Senator Cook. These are clear examples of why this Bill is unacceptable in its present form. I say again, seriously, to Senator Jack Evans, that I understand what the general purpose of the Bill is and I think it is a great pity that in 1981 the Australian Labor Party did not put these problems on the table before Senator Siddons so that the Australian Democrats might then have applied their minds to improving the Bill to eliminate a lot of this stuff. I wish that company managers throughout Australia would take note of some of the things which have been said today about employee participation and would apply their minds in some way or other to getting these systems going. Our country would be so much better off if they adopted some of these criteria. I go a step further and say that not only would the country and the companies be better off and more profits be made, but also I see down the track that if the companies do not do it, it will be forced upon them. In some of the Scandinavian countries legislation has been introduced to enforce industrial democracy and employee participation. Unless managers throughout the country start to adopt these procedures voluntarily-there is enormous benefit for them in adopting the procedures-it is inevitable that this nation will start to have industrial democracy imposed upon it. I draw attention to what I believe is the best model of management-that which sees people as the means which encourages each employee to use his or her capabilities to the utmost and to take an active mental interest not only in his or her particular tasks but also in what the business is doing and where it is going. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(5.36) —in reply-I commence by thanking the previous speakers. This has been a very worthwhile debate this afternoon and each in his own way has contributed to developing some consensus towards the achievement of industrial democracy in Australia. I believe that the overall feeling is that we need much more rapidly to move down the path towards industrial democracy and employee participation, particularly in management decision-making. It is very encouraging to hear all speakers endorse and generally support that need. My concern during this debate has been for the misunderstanding of the primary objective of the Industrial Democracy Bill. Senator Lewis indicated towards the end of his speech the concern all of us have that if managers do not move more rapidly towards employee participation on a voluntary basis it will be forced on them. The misunderstanding about this Bill is that it is a Bill to encourage employee participation, not to enforce or prescribe it as has been suggested. It is simply to provide a framework to give some sort of incentive to hasten the involvement of companies in industrial democracy. I do not think that the suggestion by Senator Durack that this is a magic wand approach to industrial democracy is accurate or fair. It is an advance on what has been, until now, a hope and pray approach to industrial democracy. Regrettably, that has not achieved what all of the speakers obviously would have liked to have seen over the past decade. My concern with the Australian Labor Party response to this Bill is that it has been referred again to a committee and that it will be allowed to die or to fade out, and maybe one day in the dim distant future something will come about. The Australian Democrats do not believe that that is adequate; we believe it is time for this kind of encouragement to be given to employers. It is for employers- nobody is forcing it on them-to apply for registration under this Bill. It is an encouragement for them to do so and an encouragement for them to get their organisations into gear so that they may receive the tax benefit and in addition , whether they realise it now or not, the benefit of having an industrial democratic organisation. I believe it is appropriate for me, on behalf of the Australian Democrats, to compliment the encouragement which is obviously being given to the National Labour Consultative Council by the Government. I would certainly like to work in harmony with the NLCC to assist in any way that I am able to get the best possible industrial democracy legislation before this Parliament. I only hope that when it comes before this Parliament Senator Lewis is able to bring his party along with him. I hope that it will follow the same philosophical lines that he has expressed today. I hope that we will get industrial democracy legislation through this Parliament with 100 per cent support; not with parsimonious objection just for the sake of opposing, but with genuine consensus towards industrial democracy. I believe that we will not get there soon enough unless this Parliament is willing to legislate to encourage industrial democracy . Obviously the Bill will not be passed by the Senate today. That is disappointing to the Australian Democrats and to a lot of people who believe that there is a need for such legislation. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Sibraa) —Order! The time allotted under sessional order for the consideration of General Business having expired, the Senate will now proceed to further consideration of Government Business. Consideration resumed. Clause 30 (Matters to be taken into consideration with respect to maintenance). Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(5.42) —I think my amendment is known as the Fraser amendment. It originated from the former Prime Minister. Section 75 of the Family Law Act states, in relation to questions of maintenance: The matters to be so taken into account are- (1) The need to protect the position of a woman who wishes only to continue her role as a wife and mother. When this clause was inserted in the original Bill in the House of Representatives in 1975 I know it was the intention of the Government and others who desired it to improve the language of that paragraph because apart from anything else it was a sexist provision. That position could well be that of a man who wished to continue in his role as a husband and father. For rather good tactical reasons at that time it did not go back to the House of Representatives . Since then it has been a matter for comment. I think it is a matter that should be cleared up by the Parliament. The Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act referred to this matter at page 79 of its report. Paragraph 5.39 states: It has been submitted that the provision does not go far enough to protect this class of woman because of the emphasis in s. 72 on 'needs'. It is also apparent that the provision as it now stands in the legislation is not worded effectively . Recent court decisions have limited the application of the provision by placing a narrow interpretation on the word 'role' requiring the applicant to wish to continue the roles of both wife and mother. Of course, as many of these applications relate to divorces, the person will no longer be a wife, and if a man he will no longer be a husband. Therefore, literally, it has some nonsense in it. I might say that I have not taken up the amendment recommended by the Joint Committee. It was longer and unsatisfactory. Rather I have taken up the amendment recommended by the Family Law Committee of the Family Law Council of Australia in its commentary on the Bill of 1981. On page 20 of its draft report to the Attorney-General of the day it stated: Presently s. 75 (2) (1) provides that one of the matters to be taken into account in proceedings with respect to maintenance is a need to protect the position of a woman who wishes only to continue her role as a wife and mother. The Committee seeks that that paragraph be replaced by the following-- The Committee then included the words of my amendment which states: the need to protect a party who wishes to continue that party's role as a parent . I think that is an important consideration. It would be a pity if, in the somewhat defective language of the clause as it stands at the moment, the clause does not achieve its purpose. Quite obviously it deals with the parental role and the desires of either party. It may be a case of a wife involved in a divorce who has a lot of money. The husband may desire, after the divorce, to continue to see the child and the mother may have to make financial arrangements to provide a contribution so that the child can see both parents. So because of the inherent defect and sexist nature of the phraseology of this clause, and to make it more effective, I move: (33) Page 24, after paragraph (a), insert the following new paragraph: ''(aa) by omitting paragraph (2) (1) and substituting the following paragraph: '(1) the need to protect a party who wishes to continue that party's role as a parent;'; and''. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.45) —I support Senator Missen's amendment. I congratulate him for moving it. I think he has made a very adequate case for the amendment without my adding to it. I simply express my support for it. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(5.46) —I cannot go along with that. I go along with the recommendation made by the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act. It is too ludicrous to suggest that a woman should supply maintenance while the father continues caring for the child. Senator Missen —It happens. Senator WALTERS —I do not know how often it happens or whether that is the situation to which Senator Missen referred. I support the recommendation made by the Committee. I do not believe that it is very long at all. The recommendation states: The need to protect the position and reasonable expectations of a party to a marriage who had contributed to the welfare of the family during the marriage and that, but for the dissolution of the marriage, such party would have continued so to contribute. That is different. There is no way I can support Senator Missen's amendment just because it is a sexist thing. Good heavens! Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(5.47) —In the prevailing spirit of almost consensus, I indicate that Senator Missen's amendment is not opposed. Indeed it is applauded. Amendment agreed to. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(5.49) —I move: (34) Page 24, after paragraph (b), add the following new paragraph: ''(c) by omitting paragraph (2) (o) and substituting the following paragraph: '(o) any fact of circumstance, including any conduct of the parties to the matrimonial relationship, which, in the opinion of the court, the justice of the case requires to be taken into account'.''. I know that to dare to use the word 'conduct' in the amendment is like waving a red rag to a bull to all the judges of the Family Court of Australia. But this is a recommendation of the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act. The Committee used those exact words. Section 75 (2) (o) states: any fact or circumstance which, in the opinion of the Court, the justice of the case requires to be taken into account. This would also include the attitudes, conduct and actions of the partners to the marriage. It is not limiting; it is very broad. We on that Committee believed that the original intention of making that very broad insertion was to include anything at all that should be taken into consideration by the judges for the justice of the case. I will quote from the report, which states: In an early decision of the Family Court it was said in relation to section 75 ( 2) (o) that there were at least three possible interpretations of the provision: On the one side it may be said that the paragraph must be read in conjunction with the other 13 paragraphs of sub-section (2), all of which are basically of a financial nature . . . so as to be confined to facts and circumstances of economic nature. This interpretation is consistent with the overall basic philosophy introduced into the legislation, namely, to remove considerations of past conduct and fault from the determination of matters under the Act. That is one interpretation. The report continues: However, it must be said that there are several areas within the Act where conduct is relevant, such as the provisions relating to custody and the power to issue injunctions contained in sec. 114. I am sure the Attorney-General would admit that conduct of a violent nature by one of the parents is taken into consideration, particularly in the issuing of injunctions. It continues: The alternative view is that para (o) should be interpreted in accordance with the ordinary meaning of the words contained in it and that 'any fact or circumstances can and do include a consideration of conduct in a proper case; that is- this is the second type of interpretation-the actual words used- that it opens the door to the re-introduction of fault as a relevant consideration in questions of maintenance and the settlement of property. The intermediate view and the one in substance put forward (in the case) was that although conduct generally was not relevant to maintenance, nevertheless the court retained, through para (o) a power to refuse to make a maintenance order where the conduct relied on was 'outrageous' or 'gross' and was such that to make an order would offend even the most basic views as to maintenance. Accordingly the court adopted the third approach and refused to order that a husband pay maintenance to a wife in circumstances where her needs were established and he had the necessary means, but the custody of the children of the marriage had been awarded to the husband and the wife was pregnant to but had been abandoned by her lover. This view of the law was specifically refuted by the Full Court of the Family Court in a later case, it being held that the ' obvious and gross misconduct' test does not apply in relation to s. 75 (2) (o) and that facts and circumstances within section 75 (2) (o) do not include those relating to the marital history of the parties. . . The report goes on to explain a few of those. I believe that the original intention-the Committee also believed this-was that section 75 (2) (o) should include any circumstance and any matter. The Committee wound up by stating: It is the Committee's conclusion that there are circumstances in which it would be warranted for the court to take a wider view of the parties conduct. Accordingly it is recommended that the Family Law Act be amended to permit the court to look at factors other than those of financial conduct in determining whether maintenance should be payable and in relation to distribution of property under section 79. I believe that the interpretation of that particular paragraph by the Family Court judges is wrong and therefore I would like to make it more specific. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(5.55) —Senator Walters said that her proposal here would prove to be a red rag to a bull. Might I suggest there is evidence that it has also proved to be a red rag to someone whose even most fervent admirers would be scarcely disposed to so describe him. I refer to my learned and honourable predecessor, Senator Durack. I can do no better in answering Senator Walters than to refer to Senator Durack's remarks made in this place on 13 October 1981 at page 1107 of Hansard, when he was responding to the report of the Joint Select Committee. In relation to this proposed change to section 75 (2) (o) he said as follows: It is basic to the philosophy of the Family Law Act that the concept of matrimonial conduct as such-as distinct from conduct relevant to particular issues-is no longer relevant in matrimonial proceedings. Implementation of this recommendation would amount to a pointed reintroduction of the examination of matrimonial conduct at large, and would undoubtedly be seen as an invitation in maintenance proceedings to bring up all alleged misconduct of the applicant however long ago and however irrelevant to the issues of maintenance. Any amendment having that result would to a substantial extent reopen the flood- gates to recrimination and counter-recrimination. This would lead to more protracted and costly proceedings, and to a consequent greater strain on limited Court and legal aid resources. It would also reintroduce the rejected notion that maintenance-or the withholding of it-might be used to punish the party ' guilty' of misconduct. As far as conduct affecting the issue of maintenance is concerned, recent court decisions have clearly established that the conduct of one of the parties to maintenance proceedings that affected the economic circumstances of the other party can, in fact, be taken into account under the present provision. I believe that this is the limit of the extent to which conduct should be relevant. I endorse every word of that reaction to this amendment and suggest that the Committee now behaves accordingly. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(5.57) — Here we have a very strange thing. We have the Attorney-General on the one hand urging us to support his amendments because by and large they are based on the report of the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act, and on the other hand he is contradicting the proposal put so lucidly by Senator Walters and using, as his basis, statements made in this chamber by the former Attorney-General. Of course that is from the same stable. It is the advice received from the Attorney-General's Department. Senator Walters —No, from the judges. Senator HARRADINE —It comes through the Attorney-General's Department from the family law apparatus. Senator Gareth Evans —No. Senator HARRADINE —Do not get me started. One of these days we will have a good look at the family law apparatus from the counselling to the judges. We quite clearly have a situation where the judges had the opportunity to give evidence to the Committee on this matter. Presumably the evidence has been given and the Committee, in its wisdom, has come down with this recommendation. Senator Walters has chosen to attempt to have the Committee of the Whole focus on the recommendation of the Joint Select Committee. I think that attitude is fair and reasonable. If this amendment happens to be defeated here I hope that in another place some members of the Committee, who have been so vigorously in support of its recommendations as a whole, take up this matter, not to be daunted by outmoded advice from the people in the Attorney-General's Department, and then proceed with this in another place. I fully expect those people who have been concerned about this to do that and I hope that they do. I believe that Senator Walters has done us a service in reminding us of what in fact the Committee said and exposing the canard that the Attorney-General is basing his Bill on the report of the Joint Select Committee. Amendment negatived. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(6.00) —It appears that this is an opportunity for me to speak to this clause in general. I will not be long. I merely want to incorporate a document in Hansard. When I was speaking on the clause this morning, I gave certain details and statistics for 1980-81. I now have more updated statistics for 1982 relating to the enormous cost to the community of divorce in Australia. I seek leave to table the detailed document and to incorporate the one-page summary in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- DETAILS OF WIDOWS, PENSIONERS AND SUPPORTING PARENTS BENEFICIARIES Per- centage 1975 1982 increase (30 June) Widow's Pension Category of pension All classes: Widow 66,861 72,263 8 Divorcee 16,873 46,178 174 Deserted wife 35,267 44, 064 25 Other 1,790 1,586 (11) 120,791 164,091 36 Total Expenditure on widow's pension ($m) 241.4 717.4 197 Supporting Parents Benefit Number: Male . . 6,787 . . Female 36,015 122,909 241 Total 36,015 129,696 260 (17/12/82) (Female) categories Unmarried 17,365 39,946 130 Separated wife 14,461 67,120 364 De facto wife 4,189 15,843 278 36,015 122,909 241 (17/12/82) Dependent children- SPB 59,568 215,966 263 $m 76.1 605.9 696 Education & Welfare Group, Legislative Research Service Senator HARRADINE —I would commend the figures in that table to the study of the people in the family law administration, including the judges and those who arrange matters within that administration, in the hope that they will begin to understand the economic cost of divorce to the Australian taxpayer and the Australian people. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 31 (Alteration of property interests). Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(6.02) —The amendment which I am moving is different now from the one that I originally circulated. It relates to the position in regard to property settlements and dealing with property. I refer to the amendment shown in the printed paper as No. (35). I move: (35) Page 27, after proposed sub-section 79 (8), insert the following sub- section: '' '(9) The Family Court, or a Family Court of a State, shall not make an order under this section in proceedings with respect to the property of the parties to a marriage or either of them (other than an order until further order or an order made with the consent of all the parties to the proceedings) unless- (a) the parties to the proceedings have attended a conference in relation to the matter to which the proceedings relate with a Registrar or Deputy Registrar of the Family Court, or a Registrar or Deputy Registrar of the Family Court of that State, as the case may be; (b) the court is satisfied that, having regard to the need to make an order urgently, or to any other special circumstance, it is appropriate to make the order notwithstanding that the parties to the proceedings have not attended a conference as mentioned in paragraph (a); or (c) the court is satisfied that it is not practicable to require the parties to the proceedings to attend a conference as mentioned in paragraph (a).'.''. The amendment was redrafted after consultation with the advisers of the Attorney -General (Senator Gareth Evans). It is desired-this is a matter which the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act had very much in mind-to ensure that parties as far as possible attend conferences where there are problems in regard to property. It is intended that the Court should not in such a case make an order unless the parties have attended such a conference with a court counsellor , welfare officer, registrar, and so forth-unless there are reasons why that is not capable of being done. It was pointed out to me that, as originally drafted, my amendment overlooked the fact that the Family Court and State Family Courts have the facilities of counsellors which, of course, magistrates courts and district courts often do not have. Therefore it was imposing too great a burden to require any court to be able to provide this service. It was also pointed out that there may be circumstances in which property settlement is to be achieved and the court is satisfied that attendance at such a conference is not necessary . Again, it may be not practicable for people to attend if they are a long distance away and there is in reality no dispute then to be resolved and the procedure is not likely to be successful. The redraft, for which I am indebted to the advisers of the Attorney-General, is one that I believe covers the situation. It could have the effect that we would no longer have a situation in which many cases go on for long periods and property becomes very much a matter of dispute when, instead, the parties might, by early discussion or conference, have reached arrangements which would have been useful. In paragraph 7.52 of the second annual report of the Joint Committee there is reference to this and a reference to the Family Law Council's comments. In commenting on delays being experienced and the reasons for them, the Committee said: In the light of this situation and in view of restraint imposed in regard to the growth of the Court, attention needs to be given to ways of reducing the number of cases which come on to a fully contested hearing. The view of the Court administration is that there are two successful means which can be employed: conciliation conferences with Court counsellors under s. 62 (1) in cases concerning children; But we are concerned with the second part here, which states: Conferences with a registrar or deputy registrar under reg. 96 concerning particularly property and maintenance matters. These methods have proved successful in reaching settlements or at least in narrowing considerably the issues between the parties. The report goes on to applaud the success rate, in some registries up to 75 per cent, where such conferences have been held. It was the view, therefore, of the Joint Committee that it was desirable to ensure that these conferences did take place at an early stage. It was with this in mind that redrafted amendment No. ( 35) is moved by me. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.07) —The Government finds Senator Missen's reasoning compelling and his drafting now impeccable and supports his amendment accordingly. Amendment agreed to. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(6.08) —I draw the attention of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) to page 27 of his amending Bill, clause 31 (8) (a), which states: The proceedings may be continued by or against, as the case may be, the legal personal representative of the deceased party and the regulations may make provision in relation to the substitution of the legal personal representative as a party to the proceedings; This is only a very minor matter but I raise it because I am a bit finicky about these long words. The old amending Bill simply said 'and the regulations may provide for the substitution of the legal'. Why add unnecessary words to an already cluttered piece of legislation? I just wondered why the difference? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.10) —I do not have here the officer from the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel to explain the significance of that linguistic change. It has been suggested by the particular apparatchiks by whom I am flanked at the moment from the family law apparatus in my Department, to which Senator Harradine referred. The idea was simply to make the drafting style uniform with that which now is believed to prevail in the drafting of these regulation-making provisions. I do not think it is pregnant with any particular significance. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 32 (Setting aside of orders altering property interests). Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(6.11) —by leave-I move: (36) Page 28, paragraph (c), line 38, leave out ''sub-section'', insert ''sub- sections''. (37) Page 28, paragraph (c), after proposed new sub-section 79A (3), add the following new sub-section: ''(4) Proceedings for the setting aside of an order under this section shall not be instituted until leave has been obtained from the court in which the proceedings are to be instituted.''. The amendments I have moved reflect a recommendation by the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act in regard to proposals made for changes where property orders have been made. There is a desire that they should not be changed too readily and that parties make their determinations upon settlements which are made. Where settlement is made under section 79 of the Act, one should be cautious in altering those circumstances in the future. Part of recommendation 32, at paragraph 5.98 of the report of the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act, was that section 79A of the Family Law Act be repealed and a new section inserted in its stead to provide as follows: that proceedings for the setting aside of an order made under s. 79 of the Family Law Act or s. 86 of the Matrimonial Causes Act shall not be instituted until leave has been obtained from the court in which the proceedings are to be instituted; In other words, there is a filtering process whereby the Court ensures there is some major purpose for making the alteration. The Family Law Committee of the Law Council of Australia also commented on this, although I think I should fairly say that it later withdrew or did not proceed with the application. Its original recommendation stated: In order that respondents to applications to set aside or vary property settlement orders should not be unreasonably put to worry or expense when unfounded applications are brought under s. 79A, the Committee supports one of the recommendations made under the Recommendation 32 . . . It goes on to repeat that recommendation. In other words, parties may be put to very considerable expense for rather frivolous reasons by another party who has either legal aid or a lot of money to pursue it. At that stage that Committee did support the idea that leave should be obtained. I understand that this is not supported by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) and his advisers. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.13) —Among Senator Missen's many qualities, one admires his indefatigable persistence in putting up for our attention the recommendations from the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act. This combination of proposals, however, is opposed by the Government and has been opposed, on reflection, by the Family Law Council. Indeed, as Senator Missen acknowledged, it is the product of a much more luke-warm enthusiam these days by the Law Council of Australia. The reason for this resiling in each case is that everyone has come to appreciate that what is being sought to be placed here is an additional filter that really is unnecessary and will simply be productive of further costs and further delays for the parties in question. That is all that is being proposed, as Senator Missen said. An additional filter, an additional application has to be made, for leave to be granted before a party can then proceed to seek a variation. There does not seem to be any overriding policy interest served, either of a general kind or as far as the protection of the parties is concerned, which would, in our view and now in the view of the Family Law Council and the Law Council of Australia, justify this provision being pursued. For those fairly obvious reasons I suggest that the Senate not accede to Senator Missen's request. Amendments negatived. Senator Walters —Senator Lewis has withdrawn his amendment No. (38). I am not sure, Mr Chairman, whether you are aware of it? The CHAIRMAN —Yes, we are. Senator Lewis has already given notice of that. Clause agreed to. Clause 33 to 35-by leave-taken together. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(6.15) —In view of the persuasive arguments of the Attorney's advisers, I believe that it would be undesirable to proceed with my amendment No. (39), and I withdraw it. Clauses agreed to. Clauses 36 to 38-by leave-taken together. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(6.16) —Could the Attorney-General give me some explanation of clause 38? It appears that it differs from a similar clause in the Family Law Amendment Bill 1981 and omits the matters relating to periodic maintenance agreements. I am wondering what is the difference and why the difference occurred. I hope that the Attorney-General may be able to explain that to us. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.17) —I am told by my advisers that the difference is purely linguistic and is not intended to have any substantive significance. It relates to the particular question of maintenance of a periodic sum. If Senator Harradine can explain the nature of his query, I might be able to provide a better answer. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(6.18) —The relevant provision in the Family Law Amendment Bill 1981 states: (3A) Where a maintenance agreement has been registered under sub-section (1)- (a) unless the agreement otherwise provides, the agreement (other than a periodic maintenance provision in the agreement) continues to operate notwithstanding the death of a party to the agreement and operates in favour of, and is binding on, the legal personal representative of that party; and (b) if the agreement so provides, a periodic maintenance provision in the agreement continues to operate notwithstanding the death of the party to the agreement who is liable to make payments pursuant to that provision and is binding on the legal personal representative . . . Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.19) —It is simply a linguistic distinction. It is a preference for the language 'provision for the payment by way of maintenance of a periodic sum' over the language 'a periodic maintenance payment'. It is the same as the argument about whether 'continuing adultery' is a better form of words than 'adultery which is repeated on a number of occasions'. Equally, it is possible to have an argument about which form of words more clearly expresses the underlying concept. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(6.20) —I had the feeling that 'periodic sum' might mean something different from a periodic maintenance agreement. Clauses agreed to. Clause 39 (Approval of maintenance agreements entered into in substitution for rights under Act). Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.21) —I move: (40) Page 31, clause 39, leave out the clause, insert the following clause: ''39. (1) Section 87 of the Principal Act is repealed and the following section is substituted: Operation of maintenance agreements entered into in substitution for rights under Act '87. (1) Subject to this section, a maintenance agreement may make provision to the effect that the agreement shall operate, in relation to the financial matters dealt with in the agreement, in substitution for any rights of the parties to the agreement under this Part. '(2) Where a maintenance agreement makes provision as mentioned in sub-section (1), the maintenance agreement has no effect, and is not enforceable in any way, unless it has been approved by the court. '(3) In proceedings for the approval of a maintenance agreement, if the court is satisfied that the provisions of the agreement with respect to financial matters are proper, the court shall, by order, approve the agreement, but if the court is not so satisfied, it shall, by order, refuse to approve the agreement. '(4) Where a maintenance agreement that makes provision as mentioned in sub- section (1) is approved by the court- (a) any order having effect under this Part or any order made under Part VIII of the repealed Act and continued in effect by virtue of paragraph 3 (2) (c) ceases to have effect in so far as it relates to the financial matters dealt with in the agreement and, whether or not the approval of the agreement is revoked, has no further effect; and (b) subject to sub-sections (13) and (14), no court having jurisdiction under this Act may make an order (other than an order under this section or an order in connection with the enforcement of the agreement) with respect to those financial matters unless the approval of the agreement is revoked. '(5) Notwithstanding any rule of law or equity, an approved maintenance agreement shall not be taken to be void, voidable or unenforceable by reason that it makes provision as mentioned in sub-section (1). '(6) Where a court has approved a maintenance agreement, the agreement shall be deemed to be registered in that court. '(7) An agreement that is by virtue of sub-section (6) deemed to be registered in a court may be registered, as prescribed, in another court having jurisdiction under this Act. '(8) A court may, by order, revoke the approval of a maintenance agreement under this section if, and only if, the agreement is registered or deemed to be registered in that court and the court is satisfied that- (a) the approval was obtained by fraud; (b) the parties to the agreement desire the revocation of the approval; (c) the agreement is void, voidable or unenforceable; or (d) in the circumstances that have arisen since the agreement was approved it is impracticable for the agreement to be carried out or impracticable for a part of the agreement to be carried out. '(9) Where the approval of a maintenance agreement under this section is revoked by a court- (a) the agreement ceases, for all purposes, to be in force; and (b) the court may, in proceedings for the revocation of the approval or on application by a party to the agreement or any other interested person, make such order or orders (including an order for the transfer of property) as it considers just and equitable for the purpose of preserving or adjusting the rights of the parties to the agreement and any other interested persons, and, in exercising its powers under paragraph (b), the court shall have regard to the ground on which it revoked the approval of the agreement. '(10) Where a maintenance agreement has been approved by a court as provided by this section, then- (a) unless the agreement otherwise provides, the agreement (other than a provision in the agreement providing for the payment by way of maintenance of a periodic sum) continues to operate notwithstanding the death of a party to the agreement and operates in favour of, and is binding on, the legal personal representative of that party; and (b) if the agreement so provides, a provision in the agreement providing for the payment to a person by way of maintenance of a periodic sum continues to operate notwithstanding the death of any party to the agreement who is liable to make payments pursuant to that provision and is binding on the legal personal representative of that party but, notwithstanding any provision in the agreement , does not continue to operate after the death of the person who is entitled to receive those payments. '(11) Apart from the provision made by sub-sections (2), (5), (9) and (10), the validity, enforceability and effect of an approved maintenance agreement shall be determined by the court according to the principles of law and equity that are applicable in determining the validity, enforceability and effect of contracts and purported contracts, and, in proceedings of the kind referred to in sub-paragraph (ea) (iii) of the definition of ''matrimonial cause'' in sub- section 4 (1), being proceedings instituted in a court in which the approved maintenance agreement is registered or deemed to be registered, the court- (a) subject to paragraph (b), has the same powers, may grant the same remedies and shall have the same regard to the rights of third parties as the High Court has, may grant and is required to have in proceedings in connection with contracts or purported contracts, being proceedings in which the High Court has original jurisdiction; (b) has power to make an order for the payment, by a party to the agreement to another party to the agreement, of interest on an amount payable pursuant to the agreement, from the time when the amount became or becomes due and payable, at a rate not exceeding the rate prescribed by the regulations; and (c) in addition to, or instead of, making an order or orders pursuant to paragraph (a) or (b), may order that the agreement, or a specified part of the agreement, be enforced as if it were an order of the court. '(12) Where the approval of a maintenance agreement under this section has been revoked, a court shall, in considering whether, and if so, how, to exercise any powers under this Part, have regard to- (a) anything done or omitted to be done by a party to the agreement pursuant to the agreement; (b) any change in the circumstances of a party to the agreement arising out of the doing of any act by a person, or the failure of a person to do an act, pursuant to the agreement; (c) any order made by that court or another court exercising jurisdiction under this Act in connection with the agreement while the agreement was in force; and (d) any order made under paragraph (9) (b) in connection with the revocation of the approval of the agreement. '(13) Where the court is satisfied that the arrangements relating to a child of the marriage who has not attained the age of 18 years made in an approved maintenance agreement are no longer proper, it may make an order under this Part . '(14) Where the court is satisfied- (a) that the provision of maintenance for a child of a marriage who has attained the age of 18 years is necessary- (i) to enable the child to complete his education (including vocational training or apprenticeship); or (ii) because the child is mentally or physically handicapped; and (b) that the arrangements relating to the child made in an approved maintenance agreement are not proper, or are no longer proper, having regard to the matters referred to in paragraph (a), the court may make an order under this Part. '(15) In this section, ''approved maintenance agreement'' means a maintenance agreement that has been approved under this section and the approval of which has not been revoked. '(16) Nothing in this Act affects the operation of an agreement sanctioned under paragraph 87 (1) (k) of the repealed Act or the rights and obligations of a person under such an agreement. '(17) Subject to section 89, this section does not apply to overseas maintenance agreements.'. ''(2) Where- (a) a maintenance agreement had, before the commencement of this section, been approved under section 87 of the Family Law Act 1975 as in force, or as amended and in force, at any time before that commencement; and (b) the approval of the maintenance agreement had not been revoked before that commencement, section 87 of the Family Law Act 1975 as amended and in force after that commencement applies to and in relation to that maintenance agreement as if it had been approved under that section as so in force. ''(3) Where- (a) a maintenance agreement had, before the commencement of this section, been approved under section 87 of the Family Law Act 1975 as in force, or as amended and in force, at any time before that commencement; and (b) the approval of the maintenance agreement had been revoked before that commencement, section 87 of the Principal Act continues to apply to and in relation to that maintenance agreement as if sub-section (1) of this section had not been enacted .''. This amendment substantially rewrites the section 87 maintenance agreements provisions of the Act. Section 87 permits the parties to a marriage to enter into an agreement relating to financial affairs; the terms of which agreement are to be in substitution for the parties' rights to apply for property settlement or maintenance orders under the Family Law Act. To be of any effect such an agreement has to be approved by the Family Court. The Court can subsequently revoke its approval but only in very limited circumstances. The amendment that is now being moved will repeal the existing section 87 and insert a new one. The new one will contain most of the provisions of the existing one and certainly will maintian the basic scheme or purpose of the section as I have just outlined it. However, the new section will differ from the existing section 87 in two important respects, which I now spell out. First, it will permit the Court's approval of the agreement to be revoked in a wider range of circumstances than exist at present and, secondly, it will confer on the Family Court exclusive jurisdiction to enforce such agreements and to entertain all legal and equitable actions that can be brought under the general law of contract in respect to them . The amendments, conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the Family Court to entertain general contractual actions in relation to section 87 maintenance agreements, are necessary to overcome the undersirable practice that has developed in certain States of parties resorting to the Supreme Court to enforce or to otherwise obtain relief in respect of an agreement that has force and effect only because the Family Court originally approved it. The amendments to extend the grounds on which the approval of a section 87 agreement can be revoked are as follows: They are to include circumstances where the agreement is void, voidable or unenforceable, or where it has become impracticable for the agreement to be carried out. That is in addition to the present limited grounds of fraud on the Court, fraud or undue influence on a party or agreement of both parties to the revocation. These amendments to extend the grounds in this way are necessary both on account of the new powers of the Family Court to entertain the usual actions in law or equity in respect of contracts and also to achieve some consistency with the wider ground which the Bill in clause 32 proposes should be available for the variation of property settlement orders. I inform the Committee that this amendment has been the subject of quite exhaustive examination by a sub-committee of the Family Law Council and by the Family Law Committee of the Law Council of Australia. Although the amendment is technical in character, as will be evident from the bird's eye view I have just endeavoured to give, it is potentially very important in practice. I commend the amendment to the Senate. Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to. Proposed new clause 39A. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.24) —I move: (41) Page 31, after clause 39, insert the following new clause: Enforcement of maintenance agreements ''39A. Section 88 of the Principal Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the following sub-section: '(2) Sub-section (1) does not apply in relation to maintenance agreements that have been approved under section 87.'.''. This is simply a consequential amendment following upon the one which has just been agreed to by the Committee. It is a very small procedural matter that is attended here to to clean up what otherwise would be an anomaly. Amendment agreed to. Clauses 40 to 46-by leave-taken together, and agreed to. Clause 47 (Proceedings in absence of parties). Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.25) —We now reach what has been popularly described as the 'divorce by post' clause. This has the potential to result in a very drawn out and protracted consideration, as is evident from the controversy which has preceded its consideration in this chamber. I have had extensive discussions with members from all parts of the Senate in the last three to four days on what might happen in relation to this clause. It seems to me that I ought to bow to certain inevitabilities and not unduly protract or prolong the consideration of this clause. I believe that most, if not all, of the objections to the present provision allowing dissolution orders to be made without the appearance of either of the parties or their legal representatives before the Court in certain circumstances-rational as the provisions might be- could be swept away were the Government to limit the application of this clause to situations where there are no children of the marriage under 18 years. As I indicated earlier, roughly 60 per cent of divorces, if 1982 figures are to be taken as any guide, involve children under the age of 18, so it would be only the residual- Senator Chipp —What percentage? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is roughly 60 per cent. I think the figures indicate that there were 44,088 divorces in 1982, 38.4 per cent of which did not involve children. So 27,158 of the 44,000-plus did involve children. It is roughly a 60- 40 relationship between children being involved and not being involved. The concerns that have been expressed about this clause have largely turned around to how the Court can be satisfied, as it is supposed to be satisfied, that the welfare of the children has been taken into account, simply on the basis of affidavit material supplied by the parties. It is often asked: 'Will it not be necessary for the Court to put questions to the parties or their representatives who happen to be before the Court in order to satisfy the Court that the welfare issue is, indeed, properly addressed and that proper arrangements have, in fact, been made for the children in question?' Some of the registrars, people operating within the Family Court, have said that probably requisitions will often have to be made to fill in gaps in the paper materials before the Court, particularly requisitions going to the question of arrangements for the children . It is said that these sorts of requisitions are likely to be made in so many cases that the savings in terms of costs and administrative time that might be involved are likely to be very substantially reduced as a result. There is some rationality, I believe, as well as a matter of yielding to compromise, lying behind this arrangement. The previously foreshadowed amendment of the Leader of the Australian Democrats, Senator Chipp-no doubt he will wish to speak to that amendment-was particularly motivated, as I understood it, by the concerns I have just expressed; that it is arguably necessary for the Court to be persuaded, not just on the papers but by the physical presence of someone before it, that the children's welfare is properly being taken into account. For all those reasons I believe the clause will go a substantial way towards solving the problems associated with the acceptance of the clause were I to limit it in the way it is proposed. I seek leave to move the amendments together. Leave granted. Senator GARETH EVANS —I move: (1) Page 35, clause 47, after proposed paragraph 98A (1) (a) insert the following paragraph: ''(aa) there are no children of the marriage who have not attained the age of 18 years;''. (2) Page 35, clause 47, line 16, in proposed sub-section 98A (2) insert ''there are no children of the marriage who have not attained the age of 18 years and'' after ''marriage''. No doubt other points will be made in the course of the debate about the so- called demeaning effect on the institution of marriage and so on by procedures of this kind being able to take place at all without the presence of the parties . Perhaps I could address myself in reply later on to those points should they be insisted upon by others in the chamber. But I believe it would expedite this debate in everyone's interests if we could now deal with the amendments I have moved. The CHAIRMAN —Senator Walters, procedurally we will deal with these two amendments first. You have foreshadowed an amendment to substitute the whole section. Whichever way these amendments go you will be able to move your amendment after they have been dealt with. We will deal with these two amendments first. Senator Walters —Mr Chairman, do you think that is the wisest course? The CHAIRMAN —Yes, I have just so ruled. Senator Walters —I just believe that the whole divorce by post area ought to be debated first and taken in context. To bring in just one section of something that I am opposing the whole of seems to me to be not quite a sensible suggestion. I suggest- Senator Gareth Evans —Perhaps your opposition will be less far-reaching now that we have cut off one slice of what attracts your antipathy. Senator Walters —It does not stop my objection to the whole section. Therefore, I would prefer to debate the whole section first and then have Senator Evans's amendments put. Senator Gareth Evans —It might cut short some of your arguments though, Senator. Senator Walters —I think the Chairman is aware of the arguments. He is a clearer thinker than the Attorney-General. The CHAIRMAN —Order! Senator Walters, you did yield to the Attorney-General. It is to my mind immaterial in which order the amendments are dealt with. If the Attorney-General is prepared to have them dealt with in that way and withdraw his amendments until they are discussed, I am- Senator Gareth Evans —My point in seeking the floor was to try to expedite what otherwise might have been a protracted debate to the extent that much of the argument against the so-called divorce by post clause may have centred around the implications of this clause for marriages where there are children under 18. It seemed to me that if the Government was prepared, admittedly under a degree of pressure, to modify the actual proposal before the chamber so as to reduce the application of the clause only to those marriages where no children were involved, we might avoid what would otherwise be wholly empty argument. Senator Walters —I gave way to Senator Gareth Evans so that he could put that point and therefore avoid the debate being protracted. As far as the vote is concerned I would prefer it to be the other way around, for rather obvious reasons, if the Attorney gives a little thought. But if he wants to have the vote now, then fine. I have allowed the Attorney to put his points first, which I thought was very good as we do now need to debate them in the general context. But as far as the vote itself is concerned I think it would be advisable to put it second. The CHAIRMAN —As the situation stands two amendments were moved by the Attorney- General. They are the ones before the Committee at the moment. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(6.35) —I am taking these amendments on the run as I was not consulted in any way about them. I saw the amendments only five or 10 minutes ago. Still, this is one of the things one expects to happen in this place and one has to make the best of it. I was one who supported the original proposal which the Attorney-General put into the Family Law Amendment Bill and which the Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act recommended. I still think that is the best proposal. Certainly, I am relieved to see that we are not faced with the fact of welfare officer reports which, with respect to Senator Chipp, would have been a shocking waste of money when there are many more areas of family law with greater priorities for expenditure. Therefore that was not a solution. Certainly these proposals are better than that possibility if we are going to give way in part on this clause. I would be interested to know-I am not going to oppose the proposals which the Attorney-General has moved-what consultation there has been on these amendments. The Attorney-General has given us the figures. Something like 27,000 divorces will not be eligible for consideration in this way. I would be interested to know what the costs involved would be. I note what the Attorney said about the fact that there would be requisitions and therefore there may be fewer cases. I presume this matter has been discussed with judges of the Family Court who are experienced in this matter. I presume the proposals have not been taken entirely on the run by the Attorney-General. Some good, sound, experienced people performing in this area have advised that this is a sensible solution. I would be interested to know to what extent advice has been taken on this or whether it has been done on the run. In either case, it is probably a matter which will have to go ahead now since a settlement has been made with various unnamed parties in this Senate. Senator Walters —Are we going to press the debate? Senator MISSEN —Is there to be a reply to my remarks, Attorney-General? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(6.37) —I am happy to reply to Senator Missen. Of course there has been consultation. I have engaged in non- stop consultation with the judiciary on the legislation as a whole and on this clause in particular since I have been in office and have had many viewpoints expressed to me. In the particular context of the situation that arose with relation to this clause in the last 24 hours, I have had consultations with His Honour, Mr Justice Fogarty, who is now Chairman of the Family Law Council, and I proceed against the background of those consultations. But I hasten to add, for Senator Missen's benefit-I regret that I did not consult him, but I was able to add up the likely result on the basis of those I did consult-that I simply do not believe that the proposal in its original form would have been carried in this place. Rather than go through a long and protracted debate and produce a result which would have been in the negative, it seemed to me that discretion once again was the better part of valour. In many respects the result arrived at is rational because it accommodates a number of the problems that were articulated by Senator Chipp in his Press release of a few days ago. The amendments meet a number of the problems of a practical kind that have been raised by registrars and others within the Family Court system as to the real utility from an administrative point of view, of a full scale divorce on the paper system because of the point about requisitions and so on. They will meet at least some of the arguments in principle about which we will no doubt now hear from Senator Walters and others. Sometimes, Senator Missen, one just has to put away one's sword, stop tilting at windmills and accept some of the awful realities around us in the quixotic world we inhabit. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(6.38) —I am in a somewhat awkward position. Whilst I acknowledge that the amendments that have been mooted by the Attorney-General and which were, as I understand it, founded on Senator Chipp's suggestions, do improve the clause before us, I happen to be opposed to the thing but-- Senator Chipp —Would you agree that you were against the whole thing? Senator HARRADINE —Yes, that is right. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(6.39) —I am obviously in a difficult position because the vote is being pushed now. Therefore, I will have to oppose the amendments. Senator Chipp —You can still vote against the whole section. You can support this and vote against the section. Senator WALTERS —No, I am not likely to support those amendments. I am voting against them because they interfere with the whole of the section. I find that the amendments help tremendously in that 27,000 divorces will not be allowed to be dealt with in this way, as you have just indicated. But that is not good enough. Therefore, it makes the voting on this very difficult. That is why I particularly asked the Attorney if he would delay the vote until after I had put my amendment. Amendments agreed to. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(6.40) —I move: (42) Page 35, proposed section 98A, lines 3 to 25, leave out the proposed section, insert the following new section: '98A. At the date fixed for the hearing of proceedings for dissolution of marriage, both parties to the marriage shall attend the court, unless the court, in its discretion, determines that the attendance of either or both parties is not practical.'. The Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) told us that divorces involving children-he said the number in this cateogry last year was 27,000-would be excluded from the 'divorce by post' provisions of the legislation. Among other things he said that he believed that it was in fact easier for a judge to assess the situation of children if the parties appeared before him. That, I believe, underlines the whole case that I am about to put. Senator Gareth Evans —Even if there are no children. Senator WALTERS —Even if there are no children. As the Attorney-General has just indicated, if the parties are before the Court it is very much easier for the judge to assess the real reason for the breakdown of marriage. He will not have to consider something that has been written on a form and sent to him perhaps by a deeply depressed wife who has been deserted for 12 months. As I say, these things are often done in a fit of deep depression. I believe that clause 47 is a destructive piece of legislation. Section 43 of the Family Law Act, in part, states: The Family Court shall, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under this Act or any other Act, and any other court exercising jurisdiction under this Act shall, in the exercise of that jurisdiction, have regard to- (a) the need to preserve and protect the institution of marriage as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others voluntarily entered into for life . . . If we believe, as I am sure that everyone in the chamber must, that such a provision is in the best interests of the Australian community, if we believe that the family unit is the stable influence in the Australian community, we cannot possibly allow 17,000 people, as was the case last year, let their partners fill in a form. A person need not necessarily alert the partner that he is filling out a form. At some later date a person could get a letter back saying: 'Dear Mrs So and So, you were divorced on such and such a day'. There need be no real acknowledgement that the divorce is proceeding. Does anyone really believe that the divorce by post part of the legislation upholds the view expressed in section 43 of the Family Law Act that the Family Court shall have regard to the protection of marriage and the institution of marriage? How can a judge assess the situation by looking at a bit of paper? Senator Tate —It happens now. Senator WALTERS —It does not occur at the moment. Senator Gareth Evans —Do you know how many people have to be there before the Court and who they are? Senator WALTERS —The Attorney acknowledged a little while ago that I was on the review committee. The Attorney is 100 per cent wrong to ask that stupid question of me. I am quite well aware that only one person has to appear before the Court in an undefended case and that does not even have to be the partner. It can be the partner's legal representative. Senator Gareth Evans —Do you know how many cases are dealt with in that way? Senator WALTERS —I am quite well aware of that. I have been ashamed when I have been in the Court and seen divorces go through in one and a half minutes or perhaps even less. I am not suggesting that my amendment seeks a return to the status quo. I ask the Attorney-General not to keep quoting the status quo at me because I am not asking for a return to that. I am suggesting that both partners be at the hearing for dissolution of marriage unless the judge determines that it is not practicable for that to happen. Senator Chipp —Do you know how much agony that can cause in certain cases? Senator WALTERS —I do know that I have attended those-- Senator Chipp —You are going to force people into an unpleasant situation if they don't want to be. Senator WALTERS —That is a ridiculous thing to say. If Senator Chipp believes that should be the case, why make people do anything? The Attorney has just said that he believes a judge could not really assess a case from a form filled out by a distraught wife. How can a judge assess from what is on the form that that is a true indication of the breakdown of marriage? He has not seen the woman; he has not seen the woman's attorney; he has not seen anyone. The woman has filled in a form to the effect that she is seeking a divorce because she and her husband have been separated for 12 months or more. As I said a little earlier, she may be depressed because she is not able to cope with the fact that her partner has not contacted her for over 12 months and she does not know where he is. She is going through this trauma. The judge does not have any indication from the husband whether perhaps there is any chance of reconciliation. There is no indication by the woman that if the husband appeared there could be a chance of reconciliation. The woman just writes on the form that she wants a divorce. She states that she and her husband have agreed to certain maintenance arrangements-I will not mention anything about children at the moment-and that things have been tidied up generally. However, she states that she and her husband have agreed to the divorce. Many women are completely disadvantaged by the fact that they do not know the legal aspects of divorce. They do not have a clue how much their partner is even earning. Therefore, they do not have any idea of what their entitlement might be to maintenance or the division of property. The woman is presented with a form to fill in which will give her a divorce. Sometimes she is not quite sure when. She will get a notice later which will tell her when. As I said a few moments ago, the Attorney said that partners must appear before the Court if children are involved. He has underlined the fact that the judge cannot assess properly from a form whether children are being looked after in a correct fashion. Senator Gareth Evans —I didn't say that. Senator WALTERS —He said it is easier for a judge to assess the situation when the parties appear before him. Senator Gareth Evans —It gives the opportunity to ask questions. Senator WALTERS —It gives the judge an opportunity to ask questions. Senator Gareth Evans —If he needs to, which is highly unlikely in most cases. Senator WALTERS —That is right, and if the partners of the marriage are before him, again it gives him the opportunity to assess whether the marriage has broken down. It gives him the opportunity to ask questions and to establish whether the marriage has broken down. We have heard during this debate that the number of marriages each year is rising. Since 1975, when the legislation was first introduced, the figures have first of all stabilised and then risen until, as I said previously in this debate, we now have a situation in which there is one divorce for every two and a half marriages in Australia every year. Those are horrendous figures. If we say to the coming generation: 'All you have got to do to get divorced is to fill in a form and post it; nothing else has to be done -' Senator Gareth Evans —That is not true. Senator WALTERS —It is true. Once a couple has been separated for 12 months, if they are in agreement all they will have to do to obtain a divorce is fill in a form. As Senator Chipp said, the people concerned will not have to go through any trauma. The whole procedure will be terribly easy; no trauma at all will be involved. If we say that to coming generations, what will they be doing in 10 years' time? As I have said, we already have one divorce for every 2 1/2 marriages and 50 per cent of second marriages fail. Those figures are appalling. If we are to say to coming generations, to the children of honourable senators and to my grandchildren, that all they have to do is walk out of a marriage for 12 months, then fill in a form in order to obtain a divorce, they will not even give marriage serious consideration. Marriage will be no better than a de facto relationship, out of which a person can walk at any time. They will have no responsibility whatsoever to their spouse. I think we have reached the situation where we have to say: 'What does marriage in Australia mean today'? If we examine the figures we can see that it does not mean much. It certainly means darned little to 44,000 couples. Are we to elaborate that situation-and make divorce easier? Already we have taken fault out of the Family Law Act. I am not complaining about that. We have told parents that it is now easy enough for them to obtain a divorce. They have not, as was necessary in the past, to go through the terrible problem of proving fault. Are we to make it even easier to obtain a divorce because, as Senator Chipp says, it might be traumatic for people to appear in court? What on earth will be left in marriage? If a person can get in and out of marriage as quickly, easily and uncomplicatedly as one can get out of a de facto relationship, why bother with marriage at all? I feel very strongly about this. Senator Gareth Evans —Go on. Senator WALTERS —Senator Gareth Evans can ridicule my view if he likes but I do feel very strongly in this regard. One of the recommendations of the Senate Select Committee on the Family Law Act amazed me. In proposing divorce by post, it said: procedures for enforcement of maintenance should be improved and in particular it is recommended that: . . . the regulations be amended to ensure the attendance, wherever possible, of both parties when maintenance matters are dealt with . . . The review committee virtually said that we should not worry about the dissolution of marriage. It recommended that both parties need not be present; all they need do is fill in a form and post it. If there is to be argument about maintenance both people should be present. That is material, cost effective and will make a big difference. The judge will be able to assess the situation properly. I do not believe that he can in the absence of the parties. Likewise, in such circumstances he cannot assess whether the marriage has indeed broken down. The main reason Senator Gareth Evans has sought the inclusion of this provision in the legislation-he is not on his own because the review committee said the same thing-is that it will be much cheaper. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(6.55) —I would like to say a few words on the amendment that we have before us. I was pleased to hear the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) say that it would not affect cases which involve children under the age of 18 years; parents desiring a divorce will still have to appear in court. I want to say a few words concerning that. We have to be very careful that in making it possible for 17,000 other marriages to be dissolved by post we do not overlook that factor. I feel that the divorce by post clause will in fact make the dissolution of a marriage a more bureaucratic process. The Anglican archbishops of Australia made a valid point in their comments on this section of the proposed amendment, when they stated that marriage was not simply a private arrangement between two individuals; it was also a public act, significant for the community; that the law recognised this by requiring the presence at the marriage of an authorised celebrant and at least two witnesses. It is indeed regrettable when a marriage ends in divorce. I think we all feel that way about it. In my view, if a divorce occurs it is no less a public act than is the act of marrying. Dr Daniel Overduin, the Honorary Director of the Family Foundation, is reported as saying: The proposed provisions for 'divorce by post' were not only criticised by the Law Council of Australia, but also by a number of church and community leaders. I believe that the church which, through their priests, pastors and ministers, celebrate more than 60 per cent of Australia's marriages, should take a vital interest in family law and policy. Since we do not enter marriage 'by post' we should not introduce 'mail order divorce' . . . We need to return to a better understanding of marriage, a greater appreciation of the family, and a legally- enforceable demand for individual accountability. I feel sorry to think that divorce by post is being brought in for even some 17, 000 marriages. To my way of thinking there is certainly something superficial and short term about the concept of sparing parties the trauma of separation proceedings. In fact, I think one could say that the whole matter of divorce is traumatic. Separation, whether by death or divorce, is a painful experience, but the grief has to be accepted and dealt with. Additional energy, funds and legislative thrust should be put into providing more adequate marriage and pre-marriage counselling in the hope that people will accept their responsibilities as far as marriage is concerned. I am very pleased indeed that at least the parents of children under 18 will, according to the amendments brought down by the Attorney-General, have to attend court. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(6.58) —I rise briefly to congratulate the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans) on the very considerable concession that he has made in regard to this particular matter, which I know has aroused considerable controversy, anxiety and some misgivings, as expressed in the course of this debate and in the community generally. The fact is that I do not think the proposal in being titled divorce by post was really well understood in the general community. It has to be stated yet again that this particular procedure in the absence of parties was to occur only when the proceedings were undefended and obviously not contested, where one party had requested the Court to determine the proceedings in the absence of the parties and the other party had not requested the Court not to so determine the proceedings. Indeed, the fact that the divorce would then take place on the basis of documents consisting of application forms and supporting affidavits is I think somewhat misrepresented by the claim that it would be simply a question of filling out a simple form and posting it to the Court. I think the Attorney has quite rightly identified the perhaps 60 per cent of divorce cases involving children under 18 years as being particularly worthy of special attention. We are dealing with a situation where the parents' arrangements are affected but, of course, the fact that they have failed to sustain the marriage partnership does have major repercussions on the children under 18 years. In that situation, as I understand it, it is not quite as Senator Bjelke-Petersen put it, that is, that both parents would have to attend the Court, but certainly the applicant or his or her legal counsel would have to attend, and that is as it ought to be. I congratulate the Attorney on making this concession, and I hope that it will enable the passage of the clause. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted. Progress reported. Senator McINTOSH(Western Australia) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence I present a report dated September 1983 on the human rights and the conditions of the people of East Timor, together with the minutes of evidence. I also table a submission from Amnesty International received by the Committee but inadvertently not included with the two volumes of the Committee's evidence which I have just tabled. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator McINTOSH —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. This Committee was asked by the Senate to inquire into the human rights and condition of the people of East Timor. No examination of East Timor, whether by a Senate committee or parliamentary delegation, can claim to be definitive. Access to East Timor is severely constrained and information, from whatever source, is rarely objective. To overcome these difficulties the Committee has attempted to corroborate evidence from East Timorese sources by reference to independent bodies such as Amnesty International and the International Red Cross . The Committee received 218 submissions, including 28 from overseas, and took evidence from 42 witnesses at public hearings and 50 witnesses in camera. Some of the in camera witnesses were relatively recent arrivals from East Timor, and most East Timorese witnesses requested anony- mity because of fear of reprisals against relatives still in East Timor. While much of the evidence the Committee received relates to the years prior to 1982, it has also drawn heavily on the evidence of recent visitors to the territory. The report of the Australian parliamentary delegation has provided contemporary statistical material. The Republic of Indonesia did not participate in the inquiry. However, the Committee has used official Indonesian sources to present the Republic's point of view, particularly in relation to the so called act of self-determination in 1976 and in describing Indonesia's economic and social development programs in East Timor . It is the general conclusion of the Committee that the invasion and subsequent occupation of East Timor by Indonesian forces was an illegal act. Further the so -called act of self-determination by which, it is claimed, East Timor was incorporated into the Republic of Indonesia fails to meet accepted international legal criteria for such an act. The fundamental human right-the right to self- determination-has been denied to the people of East Timor by Indonesia. That is a fact which no economic development program and no 'pragmatic' Australian foreign policy can deny. There is also overwhelming evidence of continued abuse of the human rights of people of East Timor up to the present day. It is the view of the majority of this Committee that in the absence of an internationally recognised act of self-determination of East Timor the Australian Government should not give de jure recognition to the incorporation of East Timor into Indonesia and should oppose Indonesia at the United Nations on this issue. It will be said that such an Australian action will alienate Indonesia and do nothing for the people of East Timor. However it is clear that our expedient policies over the last eight years have done nothing either to influence Indonesia and earn its respect or to benefit East Timor. It might be argued that only by maintaining public pressure on Indonesia will that country feel obliged to work to improve conditions in East Timor and to moderate its treatment of the East Timorese people. Thus it is time Australia stopped appeasing Indonesia over East Timor and stood up for the principles it subscribed to at the foundation of the United Nations and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and has nominally supported ever since. We might belatedly emerge with some credit from this unhappy episode in Australia's international relations. As to the conditions of the people of East Timor, it is beyond doubt that Indonesia is now investing heavily in the social and economic development of East Timor and is making good some of the damage and appalling suffering of the territory in the wake of the military occupation of East Timor. Unlike the polyannas and starry-eyed optimists in this world, I do not believe that Indonesia's development program is totally altruistic. The objectives, beneficiaries and achievement of that program require much closer scrutiny than they have been given. It will be readily apparent that policies such as the resettlement program and the expansion of Indonesian language education have security significance underlying their more obvious objectives. Nor do I believe that expenditure on development can compensate for the many thousands of deaths in East Timor, resulting from Indonesia's invasion and the subsequent famine in the territory. Nor finally do I believe that the rights of the people of East Timor can be traded off for the promise of future development. Honourable senators will note that the Opposition members of the Committee have dissented from the report. This is regrettable but probably inevitable, and I respect their right to do so. Unlike my 'colleague' in another place, I have not taken the unethical course of enshrining abuse of the dissenting members or their dissent in the published report. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(7.08) —One of the features of reports of Senate committees has been the very high degree of unanimity reached by the members of those committees. It is a matter of great regret to me that this report on the human rights and conditions of the people of East Timor, which deals with a matter of great significance to Australia in our relations with Indonesia and what we can do to help the people of East Timor, is a divided report. I repeat that it is a completely divided report, with three members of the Government in favour of the report and three members of the Opposition totally opposed to it. I think that this division was caused partly by the strong preconceptions with which some members approached the problem, partly because of the nature of the problem itself, and partly because of the manner in which the inquiry was conducted. The dissenting report by Senator Scott, Senator MacGibbon and myself sets out the objections of these three senators to the whole tone, structure and conclusions of the report. Before I deal with these objections, I should make it clear that all of us accept that the Indonesian invasion and occupation of East Timor was a clear violation of international law and that it was accompanied not only by brutality but also by a sharp drop in the human rights and economic conditions of the people of East Timor, which were already bad enough after centuries of deplorable Portuguese rule and the turmoil which followed the irresponsible Portuguese abandonment of its former colony. However I am satisfied that the Indonesians have, in recent years, made substantial and effective efforts to improve the human rights and economic conditions of the people of East Timor although both of these still remain well below the desirable level. The trouble with our inquiry was that a great deal of it had nothing to do with our terms of reference. Senator Button pointed out, when he moved for the inquiry-this was reflected in our terms of reference-that we should not embark on a political investigation of the rights and wrongs of the past. Yet that was exactly what the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence did. Refugees are notoriously a very unreliable source of information about conditions in the country from which they have fled. Yet, in the report, such evidence, much of it very out of date, is given grossly exaggerated credibility. For reasons beyond our control, we heard nothing from the satisfied Timorese of whom the joint Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Indonesia recently found a great number, nor anything from the Indonesian authorities. The refusal of the Indonesians to co-operate was regrettable but understandable. It is their opinion that East Timor is an internal matter. Worse still, the whole report is, in my view, a totally pointless exercise. We attempted to go to East Timor as a delegation. The Indonesian Government refused this but it ultimately permitted a joint delegation to visit East Timor. Its report was tabled earlier this week. The delegation's report flatly contradicts the evidence, conclusions and recommendations of this report before the Senate. My impression is that the conclusions and recommendations in the Senate Committee's report were decided before any evidence was heard, evidence which in any case, as I have pointed out, was very incomplete, biased and unsatisfactory. It is a matter of great regret to me that this investigation was ever given to our Committee. The Committee made it quite clear that it did not want this reference. Yet, the Senate, as is its undoubted right, gave it to the Committee. The reason we did not want it was that we were in a no-win situation. For better or worse the incorporation of East Timor into Indonesia is a fact and will not be reversed by anything Australia says or does. The problem for the Committee was that whatever we said in our report was bound to offend Indonesia. It would do no good-it would probably do some harm-to the condition of the Timorese people and our ability to help them. For these reasons our investigation was, or should have been, a damage limitation exercise. I think this report ignores that fact and is irresponsible in its recommendations. My only hope is that it will be totally ignored. Senator PRIMMER(Victoria)(7.14) —One can express regret about the period of gestation of this report. In my years as a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence the Committee has averaged roughly one report per annum. Regretfully, due to factors beyond the Committee's control, the dissolution of Parliament and all sorts of other factors, this report took a long time. In my 11 years or 12 years on the Senate Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee, I have, without a doubt, heard evidence from hundreds of witnesses on a great multiplicity of references, including two reports brought down by that Committee on Indo-Chinese refugees. This inquiry was the most heart rending I have ever participated in. The stories of rape, murder, abduction, torture, pillage, intimidation, et cetera, told by refugees from East Timor can, in my view, be compared only with the suffering of the people of Kampuchea under Pol Pot. In my view all of this could be seen daily in the eyes of the witnesses as they came before us-sad-eyed Timorese people. One had only to read their eyes to get some idea of what they had been through. Furthermore, people who gave evidence to the Committee in camera-there was a large number of them-were afraid for their safety, not only for their own, but also for that of their relatives in East Timor. The minority report mentions that the major report deals with past events. Senator Hamer placed some stress on that. I concur. But with respect, the two inquiries into Indo-Chinese refugees also, in many aspects, dealt with past events. There is no other way it can be. Furthermore, it will shortly be 12 months since the Committee finished taking evidence. However, it should be pointed out that the Committee took every opportunity to speak to witnesses who were newly arrived in this country from East Timor. I think in one case the Committee spoke to a person who had been here for a matter of days and, in another case, it spoke to a person who had been here for a few weeks. Every endeavour was made by the Committee to obtain the most up-to-date information possible. I point out also that much of the evidence that the Committee heard is supported by the recent international statement in London on East Timor by Amnesty International, dated August 1983. I seek leave of the Senate to have that statement incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- EXTERNAL (for general distribution) AI Index: ASA 21/09/83 Amnesty International International Secretariat 10 Southampton Street LONDON WC2E 7HF England Date: August 1983 STATEMENT OF AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL'S CONCERNS IN EAST TIMOR Amnesty International considers it an appropriate time to issue a comprehensive review of the conduct of Indonesian forces in East Timor and the violations of the human rights within Amnesty International's mandate which have resulted. Amnesty International has recently received evidence indicating that official policy has condoned violations of human rights of the most serious kind. It is Amnesty International's view that there is now strong evidence that, since the invasion of December 1975, Indonesian forces in East Timor have engaged systematically and persistently in practices of brutality. It has been necessary to stress on each occasion that Amnesty International has issued a statement on East Timor that its information cannot be regarded as complete. The strict control imposed by the Indonesian forces continues to limit access to the territory and the free flow of information out of it. Violations of human rights in East Timor have occurred in a context in which the right to freedom of expression does not exist. People expressing that right have been detained and ill-treated.1 Movement and communication within and beyond East Timor have been tightly controlled. Amnesty International further understands that East Timorese recently permitted to leave the territory to be reunited with their families abroad have been warned routinely by Indonesian intelligence officers before leaving not to reveal information which might discredit the Indonesian occupation and have been threatened with reprisals against themselves and members of their family still in East Timor if they do so. 1 These include the cases of: three people, at one time associated with the 'integrationist' Uniao Democratica Timorense (UDT), who were arrested and beaten in July 1980 reportedly for having aired criticisms of the Indonesian occupation on the Tetum -language program of Radio Republik Indonesia, Manu-kokorek; two members of the Indonesian appointed Regional People's Representative (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah, DPRD) arrested in November 1981 after they had written to President Suharto in June 1981 alleging serious misconduct by Indonesian officials and military personnel including the killing of non-combatant East Timorese; persons who had communicated with visiting delegations and television crews being subsequently taken in for questioning. Despite the circumstances, it has been possible to accumulate a large body of evidence on the situation of human rights in East Timor. The cases cited in this statement are based on mutually corroborative testimonies from sources which were geographically dispersed and independent of each other. While the evidence available to Amnesty International had long suggested a clear and consistent pattern of human rights violations, Amnesty International had not until recently received direct evidence that these vio- lations had been officially condoned. Recently, however, Amnesty International received a copy of manuals and guidelines issued in July-September 1982 by the then Indonesian commander for East Timor and his intelligence chief to Indonesian military personnel serving in the Baucau district of East Timor. Contained in these manuals are guidelines which: (1) condone the use of physical and psychological torture in certain circumstances during interrogation and provide guidelines to prevent its exposure;2 2 In the manual on Established Procedures on Methods of Interrogating Captives, a section entitled ''Things to be Avoided'' contains a sub-section (V.13) on the ''Use of Force and Threats''. While the use of force and threats is described in the introductory sub-section as something generally to be avoided, sub-section V .13 appears to condone the use of force and threats, including, in certain circumstances, torture. It reads: ''V.13. The Use of Force and Threats It is hoped that interrogation with the use of force will not be implemented except in those situations where the person examined tells the truth with difficulty (is evasive). However, if use of force is required there should not be a member of the local population (guides, members of the civil militia, ordinary people) present to witness it so that the antipathy of the people is not aroused. The use of force often has the consequence that the person being interrogated under duress confesses falsely because he is afraid and, as a consequence, agrees to everything the interrogator wishes. Avoid taking photographs showing torture (taken of someone being given electric shocks, being stripped naked and so on). Remember that such documentation/photographs should not be printed freely outside/in Denpasar and obtained by irresponsible members of society.'' (2) condone the issuing of threats on the lives of persons undergoing interrogation to ensure their co-operation;3 3In the Technical Manual on Methods for Village Authorities (Babinsa/Team Pembina Desa) To Break Up the Network of GPK (Fretilin) Support, Section 3.c, there is a guideline which states: ''Point out that their friends are still alive because they have given honest confessions and have been prepared to help the armed forces in the prompt restoration of security.'' Again, in the Technical Manual on the System of Security in Towns and Settled Places, section V.15.c.3), a technique recommended to interrogators is: ''Giving a guarantee of life to the person being interrogated provided that he gives an honest confession and is prepared to assist the progress of the Operation.'' (3) prescribe a policy of transporting Fretilin supporters and the families of Fretilin members still in the bush to ''determined places'' including the island of Atauro.4 4Section 3.d of the Technical Manual on Methods for Village Authorities to Break Up the Network of GPK (Fretilin) Support states: ''Evacuate the network of GPK (Fretilin) support still existing in the settlements, as well as the families of GPK (Fretilin) who have not yet been evacuated, to Atauro or other determined places.'' (Emphasis in original) These instructions condone and prescribe policies whose implementation could be expected to result in the violation of rights recognized internationally as absolute and never to be violated in any circumstances. Amnesty International has consistently expressed concern at the employment by Indonesian forces in East Timor of practices which have included the use of torture particularly against persons undergoing interrogation after capture or surrender; and extrajudicial executions particularly of persons thought to be supporters of Fretilin. It has also stated its concern over the transportation of several thousand people to the island of Atauro, where they have been confined in conditions which seriously endanger their health and well-being. It should be borne in mind that, while the Indonesian authorities have publicly enunciated a policy of transporting people to the island of Atauro, torture and extrajudicial executions are clearly at variance with publicly stated policies on the treatment of East Timorese held after capture or surrender. In Augsut 1977, President Suharto personally announced an amnesty for surendering '' Fretilin remnants'' which guaranteed their safety unconditionally. The initial amnesty offer was renewed after it lapsed on 31 December 1977. Leaflets in which people who surrendered were assured of their safety were constantly dropped in areas where there was believed to be a Fretilin presence. Persons who had surrendered or been captured were induced to make radio broadcasts and other forms of propaganda attesting that they had not been harmed. Instances are known of individual surrendering East Timorese being given guarantees for their safety . Amnesty International has received many reports of the torture of East Timorese suspected of having opposed the Indonesian occupation. These reports often concern persons in precisely those circumstances described in the manual on interrogation quoted above, namely people undergoing interrogation after capture or surrender. A Timorese who had worked with Indonesian intelligence has described the procedure in these circumstances: ''The normal procedure was to interrogate the captives or those who surrendered . People who surrendered and were not soldiers who had engaged in battle with Fretilin would be permitted to go free after the interrogation but only after approval from intelligence headquarters in Dili. During the interrogations they were normally tortured, especially if the interrogators thought they were Fretilin soldiers or leaders. They would be tortured by hitting them with a blunt instrument, by jabbing lit cigarettes into their faces around the mouth, or by giving them electric shocks, sometimes on the genitals. The senior authorities would decide who was to be killed after interrogation. Most of the leaders or more educated ones, those who were talented, were killed. Their wives would also be interrogated, tortured and killed.'' This description accords with information received by Amnesty Inernational on individual cases concerning the treatment of captured and surrendered Timorese. In one such case reported to Amnesty International, the individual concerned surrendered to the Indonesians in December 1978 in the village of Berecoli in Baucau district with six other men and their wives and children. Large numbers of people under Fretilin control had at that time been driven by intensive Indonesian bombardment to Mount Matebian and many of them surrendered with the agreement of the Fretilin leadership who recognized that it was no longer possible to provide sufficient food to support a population of the size accompanying them. After his surrender, P. was held for one month in the garage of the pousada (inn) in Baucau which had been converted to use as a detention centre and where an estimated 600 others were then being held. Detainees were interrogated at night. P. was interrogated in the pousada but chiefly in the Baucau barracks. He alleges that while being questioned he was threatened with a pistol. Wires connected to a small electric generator were tied round his thumbs and he was given shocks. He said that others were also burned with cigarettes but he was not. After one month's detention in Baucau, he was moved to the warehouse of the San Tai Ho store in the Colmera district of Dili then used for interrogation by army intelligence. He was released from the San Tai Ho warehouse after a week. 5 Until late 1979, army intelligence had used the San Tai Ho warehouse referred to above for conducting interrogations. Amnesty International also received frequent reports of torture of persons held in the San Tai Ho warehouse. Amnesty International would particularly like to draw attention to two interrogation houses reported to be in current use in Dili as of the beginning of 1983. There have been persistent reports of the torture and ill-treatment of persons held in these places. They are: A warehouse attached to the house formerly owned by Francisco Babo in the Rua Abilio Monteira in the Colmera district, now believed to be occupied by a unit of the RPKAD (Resimen Parakommando Angkatan Darat, paratroops), recently renamed Kpsandha; A house formerly owned by Joao do Rosario Martires in the Rua Alferes Duarte O Arbiru in the Farol district used since late 1979 for interrogation by army inelligence (A-1, commonly known as Intel). Amnesty International has reports of persons taken to these interrogation houses who emerged bearing visible signs of torture. One such account referring to the Intel house reads: ''One of my Fretilin friends was tortured with electric shocks and burning in December 1980. After the shock treatment his lips were burnt and broken as they had attached a wire to his lips. His body had also been extensively burnt with cigarettes. He was tortured because he was suspected of passing information to the Fretilin forces.'' Among those held for interrogation and allegedly tortured were a number of women, some of whom had reportedly been picked up on suspicion of having communicated with relatives in the bush. Amnesty International has the names of several women held by intelligence who were reportedly raped and had burning cigarettes applied to their breasts. An account of the RPKAD house in the Rua Abilio Monteiro attests to its fearsome reputation: ''If you go there, things are 99.9% hopeless. Those sent there had been caught in the mountains fighting against Indonesian troops, especially the bush commanders. They are tortured for information with cigarettes to the cheeks, breasts, ears, gentials and with electric shocks. Then they are killed.'' Amnesty International also has the names of people who were held in either of the two above-mentioned houses who ''disappeared'' and are feared dead. An informant who had access in mid-1982 to the warehouse behind the RPKAD house where prisoners were held reported seeing about 100 people there whom the informant judged from their appearance and dress to be predominantly village people from outside Dili. Amnesty International does not know the present situation of these people. However, there are grounds for concern for their safety in view of other reports indicating that people understood to have been taken to one or other of the interrogation houses in Dili have not reappeared. One such case involves Venancio Gomes, a member of the Fretilin Central Committee, who was arrested in Dili in the first days of the Indonesian invasion in December 1975. Those arrested at this time who escaped immediate execution6 were first transferred to the Tropical Hotel and then moved to the Portugese District Prison (the Cadeia Comarca, which is still known as the Comarca despite being renamed Lembaga Pemasyarakatan Dili by the Indonesians) in January 1976. Venancio Gomes was released from the Comarca in 1979. Following the Fretilin attack on a broadcasting station in Dare on the outskirts of Dili on 10 June 1980, Venancio Gomes was one of about 600 people reportedly arrested in Dili. He was initially held in the Comarco but after a week was taken to the Intel house in Farol. He never reappeared. 6More than 40 prisoners are reported to have been executed on 11 December 1975 in the customs building on Ponto Cais where prisoners were intially held. Amnesty International has received reports of persons dying as a result of torture and beating suffered during interrogation and this may also have been the fate of others who are reported to have ''disappeared''. Orlando Marques, whom the Indonesians had appointed camat (sub-district officer) of Iliomar, Los Palos, reportedly died as a result of blows received during interrogation after being picked up on suspicion of disaffection shortly after returning from an administrators' course on Java. Alfonso Freitas who had surrendered in late 1978 reportedly died in his house in Vemasse in 1979 as a result of blows received while detained in the pousada in Baucau. Amnesty International has the names of 14 persons who reportedly died as a result of torture and starvation in prisons in Dili and Aileu following the Fretilin attack of 10 June 1980. Amnesty International has received detailed information about the interrogation of 103 people arrested in connection with an alleged attack which Fretilin had planned to launch on the towns of Bazertete and Likisa in January 1981 all but three of whom were reportedly tortured. The 103 were taken in for interrogation in the months of march and April 1981 at the Likisa district military command ( KODIM) headquarters. Those interrogated included farmers, students, teachers, government officials, members of the civilian militia (Hansip) and several members of the sub-district representative people's assembly including its chairman. Amnesty International has received copies of two letters to a local administrator written by persons who had signed statements admitting their involvement in the alleged plan. One letter describes how its writer, after initially insisting that he had not been involved in the alleged planned attack, had been taken by the Indonesian authorities to see a former public servant detained in the local KODIM prison. This prisoner told him, ''I did not do anything wrong, but in the end I spoke because I could not bear the suffering and punishment I received. It is better to lie and obey.'' The writer later met two others who had been arrested in connection with the alleged attack who said they too had also suffered severe ill-treatment and advised him to admit involvement. The writer of the second letter also asserts that he had not participated in the alleged incident. However, he adds, ''I was forced to give way because I could not stand the beating, kicks and electric shocks . . . What is more, they even said that if I would not confess, I would be killed like the Fretilin heroes. But if it had not been for the beating, kicks and shocks and I had just been killed . . . I would have had the courage to stick to the truth.'' Amnesty International does not know the subsequent fate of the 103 arrested in Likisa in March-April 1981. Some were reportedly sent to the island of Atauro. However, there is also disturbing evidence that many of them were subsequently murdered. In their letter of 3 June 1981 to President Suharto already referred to above (see footnote 1, page 1), the provincial assembly (DPRD) members cited a recently received complaint that: ''In the district of Likisa, tens of people were murdered by KODIM after having been tortured with electricity and other forms of burning without adequate reason.'' There is now a large body of evidence indicating that Indonesian forces in East Timor have resorted to extrajudicial executions on a large scale since the very first days of the invasion. Amnesty International now has lists of hundreds of people who were reportedly killed outside combat or ''disappeared'' between December 1975 and the end of 1982. Amnesty International's own investigations have concentrated on the period from early 1979 and have revealed recurring patterns of large-scale killings and ''disappearances'' as well as cases of what appear to be random killings of individuals and small groups. Amnesty International believes that it is now firmly established that several hundred East Timorese were executed throughout the territory between late 1978 and September 1979. Some were killed immediately following surrender or capture, others some time after. Others still were people suspected of associating with Fretilin but who had not themselves joined Fretilin in the bush. An analysis attached to one list of 51 names of persons killed in the eastern part of the territory during these months states that the people on the list had held positions of second and third rank in Fretilin and that some were people in civilian occupations who had never participated in the fighting. Amnesty International's own investigation of these killings suggests that the worst affected areas were in the eastern part of the territory and in particular the district of Los Palos and the towns and villages in the vicinity of Mount Matebian. In the course of one operation in the vicinity of Mount Matebian between 15 and 17 April 1979, 118 people not engaged in combat were reportedly executed in Uatolari, Uatocarabau, Viqueque, Ossu, Baguia and hamlets on the southern slopes of the mountain. Amnesty International has the names of 31 people reportedy executed in Kelikai in May-June 1979. A report on the situation in this period states: ''When they want to liquidate someone, they say that they have gone to continue their studies or that they have left for Jakarta or Lisbon, or that they were called urgently to Kelikai. Kelikai is an administrative post at the foot of Mount Matebian where they have carried out many murders. To speak of Kelikai makes our heart beat and our hair stand on end, for Kelikai means certain death for those called there.'' Amnesty International has the names of 82 persons who reportedly ''disappeared' ' or were executed in the Los Palos district in 1979. Amnesty International also has the names of persons who were reportedly killed or ''disappeared'' in parts of the territory other than the eastern region, including the districts of Aileu and Same and in the capital, Dili. The following are typical accounts from this period: Inacio de Fonseca, also known as Solan, surrendered in late 1978 near Ossu with his wife. He was reportedly personally assured by the commander of the regiment to whom he surrendered that he would be safe. He was reportedly killed a few months later in April 1979 in Kelikai. He was reportedly flown by helicopter from Baucau to Kelikai. ''They landed near the administrator's office. Afterwards he was taken by four armed men to the hill behind the church. He had been the first to open the way to all those others who surrendered.'' Antonio Sarmento, a market gardener in Seloi, Aileu had surrendered to the Indonesians in January 1979. He was taken away one night in July 1979 by Indonesian troops reportedly as a Fretilin suspect and never returned. Norberto Correia from the village of Seical, Baucau was taken to Kelikai in May 1979 and interrogated about his sons who were thought to be with Fretilin in the bush. He himself had never been with Fretilin. After being interrogated about his sons' whereabouts he is said to have been killed. After surrendering to the Indonesians in Uatocarabau, Viqueque in October or November 1978, Joao Andrade Sarmento returned to his home in Los Palos and resumed his work as a nurse. In June 1979, he and a number of others were reportedly picked up and killed in Los Palos. Among those killed in this group were: Tome Cristovao who had reportedly never been a Fretilin sympathizer and had worked with the Indonesians as an interpreter but who was reportedly suspected of disaffection because he had protested at the killings then being carried out in the Los Palos district; and Benedito Savio who was working as an assistant to the bupati (district administrator) of Los Palos at the time of his death. There were others of those reportedly killed during 1979 who had been incorporated into the Indonesian administrative or military apparatus after the invasion. They included a military unit comprising 41 men led by one Joao Branco . All 41 were reportedly killed in Gari Uai, Baucau on 3 July 1979 by members of Battalion 126. They had reportedly been accused of having betrayed the Indonesians during the attack on Mount Matebian in November 1978. During 1979, there were also many reports of people ''disappearing'' particularly in Dili. An Indonesian who visited East Timor for several months in the first half of 1979 reported that in late March ''the people of Dili were in a state of nervousness because of the news that the remaining Fretilin leaders had been kidnapped at night and no one knew of their whereabouts.'' Father Leoneto Rego, a Portuguese priest who had been allowed to leave East Timor in June 1979, described the situation in Dili at the time of his departure: ''No one who had links with Fretilin is safe; at any time they can be taken without their family knowing and put somewhere else, put in a prison camp, or sometimes they just 'disappear'.'' Several surrendered and captured Fretilin leaders ''disappeared'' in Dili and elsewhere at this time. Among them were several persons who had been members of the Central Committee of Fretilin and persons who had been appointed ministers when the Democratic Republic of East Timor had been proclaimed on 27 November 1975 including: the Minister of Education and Culture, Hamis Basarewan Bin Umar; the Minister of Justice, Antonio Duarte Cavarino; the Minister of Finance, Juvenal Maria de Fatima Inacio; the Vice-Minister of National Defence, Hermenegildo Alves; the Vice-Minister for Communications and Transport, Domingos de Costa Ribeiro; and the Central Committee members, Maria do Ceu Pereira Cavarino, Dulce Maria da Cruz, Sebastiao Montalvao, Afonso Redentor de Araujo and Leopoldo Joaquim. Leopoldo Joaquim, a member of the Fretilin Central Committee, surrendered in Same in the soutwest of the territory in early 1978. The event was considered sufficiently important by the Indonesian authorities for them to draw up a propaganda leaflet bearing his photograph and announcing his surrender. He was detained for several months after his surrender in the San Tai Ho warehouse. In April 1979 some time after his release, he was taken by Indonesian troops from his house and escorted to the home of his 17-year-old niece, Maria Gorete Joaquim. Maria Gorete Joaquim had been detained in 1976 as a member of the Fretilin student organization, UNETIM. Both were then taken away, purportedly to work in Baucau. Neither has been seen or traced since. Various unconfirmed reports of their execution have reached Amnesty International. Several of those who ''disappeared'' from Dili were being held in prison at the time of their ''disappearance''. Among them was the Fretilin armed forces commander, Domingos da Costa Ribeiro, who had reportedly been captured and brought to Dili in 1977. He and ten other prisoners held in the Comarco were reportedly taken on the night of 18 April 1979 from the prison to a beach in the east of Dili called Areia Branca and executed by members of Battalion 745, a Timorese unit commanded by Indonesians. In this group of prisoners were also Filomeno Alves and Manecas Exposto, known in Dili before the invasion as members of a popular musical group, the Cinco do Oriente, both of whom had surrendered in Maubisse in January 1979. Two other prisoners held in the Comarca, Joao de Conceicao, formerly an official in the Public Works Department under the Portuguese, and Joao Bosco Sarmento Quintao, formerly a military policeman in the Portuguese army. Both were taken by troops of the RPKAD one night in March 1979 and never reappeared. Amnesty International has received reports that these two prisoners were killed at Lake Tacitolu, west of Dili. Amnesty International has received frequent reports of persons being taken to Areia Branca and Lake Tacitolu to be killed. Relatives of Nicolau Lobato, the Fretilin president, who was reportedly killed in combat in December 1978, were apparently singled out for execution. After a period of detention following surrender, the mother of Nicolau Lobato, Felismina Lobato, was reportedly killed with several of her children in March or April 1979 in Lacluta, Viqueque. Nicolau Lobato's sister, Maria Lobato, and her husband Moises Piedade were reportedly killed in Uai Bobo, Baucau in March 1979. Nicolau Lobato's uncle, Paolo, ''disappeared'' in late 1980 in Dili some time after his surrender. Amnesty International has continued to receive reports of ''disappearances'' and executions since 1979. Another wave of arrests, killings and '' disappearances'' occurred in Dili after the Fretilin attack of 10 June 1980. Aside from ''disappearances'' such as that of Venancio Gomes cited above, Amnesty International has received reports of outright killings by forces under Indonesian command in the immediate aftermath of the attack. 50 families living in the neighbourhood of Dare where the attack took place were reportedly killed at random in reprisal for the raid. A report on some of the killings that occurred in Dare after the June attack was sent by the then Bishop of Dili, Msgr Martinho da costa Lopes, to the Archbishop of Jakarta. On 13 June 1980, one Norberto had reportedly surrendered in the company of the bishop and other priests to the local military commander who had guaranteed his safety. A few days later Norberto was reportedly brought to the hall of Dare seminary where he was beaten and tortured by members of the civilian militia (Hansip). On 21 June, he was reportedly killed and his body thrown in a ravine. The bishop's letter also records the public torture and killing, again by members of Hansip, on 2-3 July 1980 of three men and a woman. Amnesty International has also been informed that following the attack of 10 June 1980 18 persons were taken by truck to a place called Fatu Ha'i near Becora east of Dili on the road to Baucau by members of the RPKAD. These persons were reportedly shot as they descended from the tuck , their bodies then being rolled down a hill and left. Amnesty International has the names of 74 persons who are reported to have been executed, to have '' disappeared'' or to have died as a result of torture in the Dili area following the attack of 10 June 1980. During Operation Security (Operasi Keamanan) in July-September 1981 thousands of Timorese were deployed to form ''fences'' of people who were to converge on and flush out remaining Fretilin forces. Reports indicate that civilians recruited for this operation were placed in extreme danger to their lives. They were required to advance in front of Indonesian forces and were unarmed or armed only with primitive weapons. Amnesty International received many reports that those who returned to their homes after the operation showed signs of serious physical debility as a result of inadequate food rations. It is also clear that many did not return to their homes. It is not possible to gauge the numbers killed in the operation or to establish the precise circumstances of their deaths. Amnesty International received reports covering the period of the operation of persons being killed outside combat. B., a 33-year-old former member of Fretilin who had surrendered in 1978, was taken from his home in the Grilos area of Dili one night in September 1981 by Indonesian troops. He was one of a group of about 500 forcibly conscripted in Dili at this time. In late September, the bodies of those of the group who had been killed in the operation were brought back to Dili. They included the body of B. who had been shot in the back of the head. Witnesses to his death alleged that he was one of several Timorese killed by Indonesian troops after a Fretilin unit had managed to evade capture. Although Amnesty International has not received reports of large-scale killings and ''disappearances'' since the time of Operation Security in 1981, reports of individual killings have persisted and there are grounds for concern that, in the absence of any clear intent to bring Indonesian forces within the framework of the law, circumstances may arise in which Indonesian forces resort to brutal measures on a large scale. Amnesty International continues to receive reports such as the following: In November 1982, four persons, Jose Viegas, Augusto Bello, Augusto Gusmao and Cosmo Freitas were picked up by Indonesian troops in Vemasse, Baucau on suspicion of having relations with Fretilin. Jose Viegas, a primary school teacher, was reportedly killed after his arrest. The others who were reportedly protected by the intervention of their families were taken to Dili where they were held for a period in the former Portuguese barracks in Taibesse. Also in November 1982, Joao Brito from Viqueque was reportedly executed by Indonesian soldiers in Venilale, Baucau after he had beaten an Indonesian soldier who had sexually molested his wife. In about October 1982, F., who had surrendered the previous month, was reportedly publicly burnt to death in Ainaro. After his surrender, he had reportedly been recruited to work with the Indonesians and had been sent back to the bush with the task of inducing Fretilin followers to surrender. Soon after his return from the bush, the town of Ainaro was attacked. The Indonesians reportedly accused him of betraying them and burned him to death publicly as an example. Reports of the transportation of people to the island of Atauro began in mid- 1980 when an unknown number of people were reportedly sent to the island for alleged participation in the attack of 10 June 1980 referred to earlier. G., who had surrendered in Manatuto in February 1979, was one of about 600 people arrested in July 1980 following the June attack. He was 13 years old at the time of the invasion and still only 17 at the time of his arrest. After a period of interrogation in the military district headquarters in the Colmera district and a period of detention in the Comarca prison in Dili, he was sent to the island of Atauro. He was arrested at work and his family have never been officially informed of his whereabouts. Amnesty International received further reports of the transportation to Atauro in December 1980-April 1981 of several hundred more Timorese from the areas of Los Palos, Baucua and Liquica. Those sent to Atauro during this period were reportedly civilians suspected of being sympathetic to Fretilin rather than active guerillas. The people known to Amnesty International by name who were sent during this period were indeed engaged in civilian activities as government employees, farmers, teachers and students prior to their arrest. However, the majority of those transported to Atauro were sent there in June-September 1981 during Operation Security when more than 3,400 persons were sent to the island. A high proportion of those sent to the island were women, children and old people. The case of J., is illustrative. Her husband was a member of Fretilin. She was picked up in Dili for interrogation by the Indonesian troops in early 1981 and under interrogation stated that her husband was still alive. As a result, she, her sister, her mother and her three children were all sent to Atauro. Another case concerned an eight-year-old boy, one of 16 listed in official statistics as orphans, who was sent to Atauro because the Indonesian authorities had learned that his brother was a member of Fretilin still in the bush. The conditions facing people sent to Atauro in 1980-81 were deplorable. At that time detainees were being provided with no more than one can of maize a week as their food ration and were supposed to supplement this by growing their own food . In practice the infertility of the island and the composition of the population held there made this extremely difficult and most were forced to forage for leaves, roots and other edible matter. Official statistics put the number of deaths among the detainee population between June 1981 and May 1982 at 176. However, reports received by Amnesty International indicate that at least twice this number of persons were reported to have died of malnutrition, gastroenteritis and malaria in the second half of 1981. Families transported to Atauro were initially expected to build their own shelter but in December 1981 the detainees were moved into newly-built barracks each measuring 20 feet by 60 feet and accommodating approximately 60 people. Following the visit to Atauro by a delegation of the International Committee of the Red Cross in February 1982, the Indonesian authorities agreed that the Committee should undertake an emergency food and medical relief program on Atauro. Despite earlier Indonesian assurances that Atauro would be closed, possibly by mid-1982, the number of detainees held there increased substantially during the year from 3,280 persons in February 1982 to more than 4,000 by mid-September 1982. Since the beginning of 1983, substantial numbers of people have reportedly been returned to the mainland. It is understood that the number of persons still held on Atauro had been reduced by August 1983 to about 1,600. Amnesty International has received reports that those sent back to the mainland were not necessarily returned to their home villages. One group of people who had been held on Atauro were reportedly sent not to their former homes in the eastern part of the territory but to ''resettlement villages'' near Maliana in the far west. Amnesty International continues to receive reports of detainees held without charge or trial in places other than Atauro. It is now understood that the number of political prisoners held in the Comarca in Dili is considerably lower than in 1979 when about 700 people were reportedly held in this prison, and that no more than ten persons may now be held there for political reasons. Among those believed to be still held there are two cousins, Januario and David Ximenes, and Mariano Bonaparte, all of whom had been arrested after the incident of 10 June 1980; and a group of five persons7 who were doing national service in the enclave of Oecusse at the time of the Indonesian invasion and who were transferred to the Comarca in late 1977 and have been held there ever since. Amnesty International has on several occasions expressed its concern at conditions in the Comarca. It understands that there has been some improvement in the food and medical care given to prisoners since 1980. However, recent reports confirm that tuberculosis is prevalent in the prison. Amnesty International has the names of eleven former prisoners who died from tuberculosis believed to have been contracted in the Comarca. Amnesty International also understands that payments of money have had to be made by prisoners to secure their release from the Comarca and that at least some of those still held there may be held because they cannot afford these payments. 7 Their names are: Wenceslau de Carvalho, Vicente Nunes, Celestino da Conceicao, Jose Agapito and Espirito Santo. In addition to the small remaining group of prisoners held in Dili District Prison, Amnesty International has received frequent reports of detainees held without trial in other detention centres. Detention facilities attached to the local military and police commands exist in each of the 13 districts of the territory. Reports have been received of detainess held for political reasons in such prisons in Liquica, Uatolari, Viqueqe and Baucau. There have also been frequent reports of special detention centres in Aileu and Atabae where political prisoners are reported to be held; and of people arrested for political reasons being sent to islands other than Atauro offshore East Timor and to the Indonesian islands of Flores, Sumbawa and Bali. Apart from a continuing program of visits to the island of Atauro, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has not been permitted access to any prisons aside from Dili District Prison and a prison attached to the military district command (KODIM) headquarters in Los Palos and it is understood that visits even to these prisons have not been carried out since November 1982. On 20 July 1983, Amnesty International wrote to President Suharto bringing to his attention its concern that the manuals referred to above appeared to officially condone the torture and possibly even the killing of Fretilin supporters. In its letter, Amnesty International urged President Suharto most strongly to issue immediate instructions to all forces under his command prohibiting the torture of prisoners in all circumstances. Amnesty International reminded President Suharto that it had communicated to the Indonesian Government on a number of occasions in recent years its concern at repeated reports of serious human rights violations committed by Indonesian forces in the territory of East Timor. It recalled a previous letter written to President Suharto in April 1980 expressing concern about reports of serious human rights violations in East Timor including reports that a number of people who had surrendered to or been captured by Indonesian forces had subsequently '' disappeared'' and may have been executed. On that occasion, Amnesty International urged President Suharto to instruct Indonesian forces in East Timor to ensure the safety of such people in compliance with the terms of the amnesty which he had personally offered in August 1977. The Indonesian Government has responded to Amnesty International's statement of concern that serious human rights violations appear to have been officially condoned in East Timor by denying that the Ministry of Defence and Security has issued any manuals specifically covering East Timor.8 8A spokesman of the Ministry of Defence and Security was quoted as saying, ''we have never issued such a manual for East Timor''. He added that there was a general manual issued to all Indonesian military units but declined to give details. He said that, as East Timor was considered part of Indonesian territory , no special manual would have been issued specifically covering East Timor. Anmesty International does not regard the Indonesian Government's response as satisfactory. Amnesty International has said that the manuals in its possession were issued not by the Ministry of Defence and Security as the spokesman seemed to imply but by the military command for East Timor and Amnesty International has no reason to doubt that they are genuine. In the absence of official assurances that the types of policies prescribed and condoned in the manuals are not to be countenanced, Amnesty International coninues to be gravely concerned about the prospect for human rights in East Timor. In view of the substantial evidence now available that the human rights of individual Timorese have been systematically and persistently violated since the Indonesian invasion, and in view of the lack of evidence of any official desire to countermand what appear to be standing policies whose predictable outcome is the perpetration of such viloations, Amnesty International remains deeply concerned that the human rights of the East Timorese will continue to be violated for as long as the people of East Timor express opposition to the Indonesian occupation. Senator PRIMMER —I express my disgust and I think I expressed it at the time although it does not appear in Hansard-the tapes may have been switched off-at the paucity of evidence given by witnesses from the Department of Foreign Affairs. Anybody who wants to read the Hansard transcript of the day when six Foreign Affairs officers appeared before the Committee can, I suggest, only be appalled, as I was, at the lack of information given or disinclination to give information by the six officers. In my view it was a most disgraceful effort by the Department. The witnesses said all the time: 'I am sorry, we do not know'. That is exactly the same thing that happened before a committee in this Parliament in 1974 or 1975 when officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs were told to go back to their Department and do their homework. They were so far out of touch with the reality of East Timor that even a Liberal Party member of the Committee suggested that they pack up and go home. They have not learnt much . Many people in this country, in this place and elsewhere, seem to hold the view that if we continue to acquiesce in everything the Javanese junta does every time it expands its borders all will be well. It is my prediction-I am not given to predictions-that by doing what we have done in relation to East Timor and West Irian we are creating a running sore for the indigenous people of Indonesia , East Timor, and West Irian, for ourselves and for our children for many years to come. In my view, when the Dutch moved out of their empire, the Dutch East Indies, in 1945 or 1946 or whenever it was-it seems a long time ago-Indonesia was not decolonised. The Dutch purely and simply handed over their colonies to a Javanese junta. That is exactly what it is. One has only to read the newspapers day by day and week by week and tot up the number of indigenous independent movements that now clothe the Indonesian archipelago. The problem is not going to go away. I recall one day, remarking to members of the Committee in Melbourne along these lines and I think all Australians might ponder this: Almost 200 years ago Captain Cook landed on these shores and there seemed to have been, either accidentally or on purpose, an attempt to wipe out the race which once owned this country, the Aboriginal people-and our forebears almost did it. Today, almost 200 years later, the demand by Aborigines for land rights is growing stronger and stronger. It is my prediction that regardless of what happens today or tomorrow in East Timor, if the East Timorese do not win back independence they will still be demanding it in 200 years time. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(7.21) —I would like to comment on two points made by previous speakers. First, I will deal with the claim by Senator McIntosh that the Indonesians have been quite oblivious to international opinion. I do not think he can sustain that claim. I believe that Indonesia is extra- ordinarly sensitive to international opinion and comment on its actions in East Timor. That can be seen in many ways if one looks at Indonesia's actions and if one visits Timor. The second point relates to what Senator Primmer said about the Department of Foreign Affairs. I cannot agree with him. The advice that the Department of Foreign Affairs offered to this Committee was cautious advice. It did not make any extreme claims about things that it did not know existed. It spoke within its ambit of knowledge. All I can say is that the advice it gave that Committee was borne out by the evidence that was before us when we visited Timor and Indonesia last month. I would like publicly to put on the record a compliment to the Department of Foreign Affairs for the advice it gave the Senate Committee. I compliment it on its professionalism and the way it tendered that advice. I support Senator Hamer's statement. It represents the combined opinions of the dissenting half of the Committee. Our assertion is that the data available was incomplete, largely out of date and sometimes inaccurate. The Senate report has been totally superseded by the report of the Parliamentary Delegation which was tabled earlier this week. The inquiry highlighted one very serious matter-the degree of insularity and provincialism in the Australian community. As Australia matures in its relationships with the community of nations, those who engage in and comment upon international affairs must develop a greater sensitivity to the views of other peoples in other nations. People in other nations do have a right to live their lives the way they wish to. There certainly must be an agreed code of behaviour for persons, for communities and for nations to prevent man's inhumanity to man. But we must recognise the diversity of human beings, of human societies and cultures and we must tolerate those variations if they fall within generally agreed humanitarian bounds. Much of the current anti-Indonesian comment comes from these quarters. There is no place for these narrow views or attitudes in Australian-Indonesian relationships. That is not a plea for accommodation of any nation's actions at any price; far from it. But we must recognise that the differences between Australia and Indonesia are immense- geographically, racially, socially, culturally, in religious beliefs, in the place of the Press and in the style of government. The list goes on and on. These differences are profound. This means that an understanding of each other's points of view and therefore the positions taken by both nations requires a great deal of knowledge and effort. I would like to make two comments about the conduct of the Committee. I have never been a member of a committee where so much lack of accommodation for the views of the minority, to put it euphemistically, by the technical majority was evidenced. Secondly, I have never been part of a committee which compiled a report which demonstrates such poor scholarship. Mr Deputy President, Timor has been a vexed question in Australian-Indonesian relations for years. That issue is now dead in Australia. Let us move on; let us be constructive. Let us help the Indonesians, particularly those in Timor Timur. Let us help them to a better, healthier, safer and more fulfilling life. In conclusion I draw the Senate's attention to an editorial in today's Australian Financial Review. It is a point of view from an apolitical source, a view from a non-involved observer. I seek leave to incorporate the editorial in Hansard. Leave granted. The article read as follows- East Timor and Australia The report of the parliamentary delegation which visited East Timor has followed the lines which virtually any independent, truthful non-expert inspection of the state of affairs in that unhappy area would have taken. Mr Bill Morrison and his colleagues (including, it seems, Senator McIntosh) saw as much as they possibly could, subject to limitations of travel, language, and unfamiliarity with a small, obscure region. The committee, at least four out of the five (Senator McIntosh's conclusions are ambiguous) came to the conclusion that there simply is no point in further active opposition to the Indonesian incorporation of East Timor. This is a conclusion which most reasonable people, and particularly those who have had an opportunity to visit the area, albeit subject to lack of expertise, have already reached. East Timor, like West Timor (which is ethnically identical ) has to be considered a province of Indonesia. This is no way constitutes an endorsement of the manner in which Indonesia incorporated (or, more bluntly, invaded and conquered) East Timor, nor does it represent any illusions about the nature of the Indonesian regime. The Indonesian Government could by no stretch of the imagination be described as tolerant, liberal or democratic. But neither is it totalitarian. By one standard of comparison, it is clearly to be preferred to the Russian or Chinese governments, which are far more brutal and prone to conquest than is the Indonesian Government. By another standard, it is to be preferred to the other major Moslem countries of the world. One of the most important facts about the Indonesian Government is that it is not dominated by Islamic extremists. But it is not necessary to mount a defence of the Indonesians or their behaviour. The reality of the issue is that the incorporation of East Timor is a fait accompli. More, there is no worthwhile evidence, as distinct from propaganda, that Fretilin has substantial support in East Timor. There is an enormous amount of propaganda generated by external parties regarding the state of affairs in East Timor. A recent example was the report of a major mobilisation of Indonesian troops. There is always the possibility that this might be true; but the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, has already pointed out that there is no evidence that it is true, and it is inherently unlikely. There have also been renewed allegations of famine in East Timor. Again, most of these reports, oddly enough, seem to emanate from Portugal, where there are many groups interested in opposing the new realities of government and economic development in East Timor. Mr Morrison's delegation does not seem to have returned with any mistaken perception about East Timor. They observed the prison island of Atauro, they observed poverty and hunger. These are phenomena which can be observed in most underdeveloped, poor countries, and most especially in the countries which are endorsed by the local supporters of Fretilin. Again, it is not a question of whether East Timor is or could be a rich, liberal democracy. It never has been, and certainly never promised to be under the Portuguese or under the ideologically inspired groups who tried to fill the vacuum left by the collapse of the Portuguese empire. Amnesty International has rightly pointed to gross breaches of human rights by the Indonesian authorities, both in East Timor and in the rest of Indonesia. These are a matter of concern to the Australian Government, and to Australians generally. But it is only by dealing in sensible terms with the Indonesian Government that Australia is going to be able to exercise a beneficial influence on behalf of human rights in that country. It is, of course, true that there are many people in this country, and many in the ranks of the Labor Caucus, who would rather see people die or languish in prison in Timor and Indonesia rather than admit that hysterical opposition to the Indonesian regime and the realities of East Timor is quite pointless. In all honesty, such people should pay regard to the report of the parliamentary delegation. Four of its members expressed satisfaction, within the limitations of such an exercise, as to the irreversibility of the state of affairs in East Timor. The fifth, Senator McIntosh, accepted, according to the leader of the delegation, every phrase in the majority report and yet insisted on appending a statement with no apparent basis in fact. At this point, diminishing returns on further investigations have clearly set. There has been a virtual procession of independent observers through East Timor, from Gough Whitlam on, and they have all reached similar conclusions. From now on, failing new and convincing evidence, as distinct from the continual outpourings of interested propagandists, there is nowhere for the Australian Government to go but towards rapprochement with Indonesia. The truth of our international situation is that there is no likely threat to Australia externally, and no evidence at all that Indonesia would ever be interested in expansion outside the boundaries of the colonial empire which it inherited. But as the biggest Moslem power in the world, and as the most populous member of the ASEAN group, it is a country of great significance both to Australia and to our region. It makes sense for Australia to set about developing a sensible modus vivendi with Indonesia, and assisting it to develop economically and politically towards a more prosperous and more liberal political and economic regime. We don't have to like the regime in Indonesia to accept the fact that, internationally, we have to live with it just as we have to live with the Americans, the Russians, the Chinese, and indeed every other major power. The East Timor issue is a worthy one, and we should be concerned with the welfare of the East Timorese-but not for ideological reasons. Senator MacGIBBON —Thank you, Mr Deputy President. Senator SCOTT(New South Wales-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(7.28) -Mr Deputy President- Senator McIntosh —Mr Deputy President, I claim to have been misrepresented. Senator MacGibbon claimed that I said that Indonesia was oblivious to international opinion. I said nothing of the kind. In fact I said entirely the opposite and I claim that I was misquoted by the honourable senator. Senator MacGibbon —If that is the case, I freely withdraw. Senator Bolkus —Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I came into this chamber tonight on the understanding that four members of the Committee would be speaking to the report, that we would finish at 7.30 p.m. and that the debate would be completed some time next week or later. On that basis I believed that Senator Scott and I would not be speaking tonight. I know this is nothing on which the Chair can rule but if Senator Scott is to speak then I hope to have the same privilege. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. Senator Scott has been called and I take it the debate will continue on another day. Senator SCOTT —Perhaps I can clarify the situation, Mr Deputy President. I sought to speak only in order to see out the time on this occasion to 7.30 p.m. so that the debate could continue at some future date when I am quite sure other interested people will want to comment on this report. It was only with that in view that I did not want to see the time for the debate run out. As the time now is extraordinarily close to 7.30 and I probably could not raise any purple passages in 30 seconds, I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Uranium Mining-Alcohol Abuse-Excise on Grape Spirit The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! It being 7.30 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(7.30) —Tonight I should like to speak briefly about uranium and the Government's continued agonising over it. I note the extent of the Government's dilemma with the left wing of the Australian Labor Party in its continued confrontation with the Government. I believe this was amply demonstrated yesterday by the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh, when I asked him why the Government should allow the development of Roxby Downs on the basis of the other minerals present and not allow the development of Jabiluka in the Northern Territory which has large deposits of gold. His answer was that we can mine uranium at Roxby Downs in South Australia because it has 60 per cent of other minerals. We cannot mine uranium at Jabiluka as it has only 10 per cent of other minerals. The 60 per cent of other minerals at Roxby Downs include copper, which has a depressed market. The 10 per cent of other minerals at Jabiluka is gold, which is in very strong demand. How strange it is to have as the main determinant of whether we mine uranium at a site the quantities of other minerals present. What would happen if we had, say, 35 per cent of other minerals at a site? Could we then mine uranium? What about the other important issues such as the jobs that uranium development will create, the economic development and, very importantly to me and to the people of the outback in the north, northern development, and Australia's reputation? Are these matters not important to the Government? The Government is in considerable confusion in relation to this matter and I believe that that confusion is causing immense damage. In the community, of course, there is also considerable confusion. Let us look at the damage which is being done to the present and future markets for uranium. I should like to talk briefly about two aspects of the uranium debate as they affect the Northern Territory. Those are the relationship to the Aboriginal community and world demand. In regard to the Aboriginal community-I speak broadly and mainly of the traditional owners and the Northern Land Council in the Northern Territory in the Kakadu-Jabiru area-I mention briefly an incident involving the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Holding. It concerns a sacred message stick given by the traditional owners to the Minister. That message stick was given to the Minister to be presented to the Prime Minister ( Mr Hawke). It was quite an unusual message stick, actually. Only on very few occasions have the Aboriginal people used this method of communication between themselves and the Government. They had asked the Australian Government when it would recognise the signing of the Koongarra agreement in principle. They were asking when they would get a reply, as they waited several weeks. It was decided that the message stick would be sent. It was carved by the leading traditional owners, the old men of the area, and it was presented to the Minister by Mr Blitner, the Chairman of the Northern Land Council. As I said, the Council had complained about the delay in receiving an answer. The traditional owners wanted Mr Holding to take this message stick to Mr Hawke. There is ample evidence to show that this message stick was presented with due ceremony but, in a television media report in Darwin, Mr Holding said: 'I thought it looked like a wooden clothes peg'. He did nothing about it. Senator Reid —What? Senator KILGARIFF —Yes. That angered and distressed the Aboriginal people. I believe that it was a callous and very insensitive remark. I have suggested before that the Minister should apologise to the Aboriginal people. Furthermore, I believe that the non-recognition of the ceremonial message stick and the fact that the Aboriginal people have not received the courtesy of a reply, with all the ramifications of the various moves that have taken place at this particular time, was a means of endeavouring to persuade or pressurise the Aboriginal people not to support uranium mining as they have done in such a strong manner in the last year. I can understand why this would be the case, because that support must be an embarrassment to the Government. I turn now to the demand for uranium. The world demand for yellowcake is on the increase, especially from politically stable countries. I refer the Senate to an article which appeared in the Australian of 31 May 1983 under the heading ' Looming US uranium shortage spells good news for local miners'. Referring to consumption of uranium by the United States, the article states: Consumption is rising steadily and will reach 13,793 tonnes next year, but in the meantime, production is continuing to fall and will drop to only 5,445 tonnes next year. But the US has stockpiles which will satisfy domestic production until 1988, when inventories will amount to two years' supply and the country is expected to become a major net importer at that point. This is good news for Australia's potential producers, assuming they are allowed to produce and a further optimistic development is taking place. The article continues: Major customers of the giant Rossing uranium mine in Namibia, which is 46.5 per cent owned by the Rio Tinto-Zinc group of the UK, are seeking to diversify major contracts due soon for renewal. The article goes on to say: Namibia's political future is troubled, which is one reason why major customers wish to diversify their sources of supply. The other is that Britain and Japan feel they are too dependent on one mine as a source of supply. The article continues in that vein which indicates, of course, that the demand for uranium will pick up, not in the long term but, I would say, in the short term. Australia is in a very strong situation because it is looked upon as a stable country. This cannot be said of other countries which produce uranium, particularly in Africa. The demand for uranium in Europe is increasing. By 1985 France will have 55 per cent of its electricity supplied from nuclear reactors. America will be a net importer of uranium by 1988. Throughout the world there are some 294 nuclear power reactors in operation, with 215 more under construction. I believe that we have an obligation to meet this demand and create jobs, wealth and development. Uranium will bring energy to Third World countries. I come from the Northern Territory as one of its Federal representatives. I see an enormous challenge for the north and I believe that it has tremendous potential for development. Over the years, of course, one of Australia's aims has been to develop and bring security to the north. When one looks at the tremendous potential of this development, the number of jobs that it will create , the wealth that it will bring with the development of roads and transport, one realises its immense importance to Australia. Also, the latest oil find, that of Jabiru in the Timor Sea, has an enormous potential for Australia's oil supplies. It is tremendous to look into the future and envisage its use for Australia's development. Hand in hand with that we have production of uranium for not only Australia but also the world. What tremendous importance the north could have. It would no longer be the empty north or the poor north. It would be a north of activity, increasing population and wealth. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(7.41) —I bring to the attention of the Senate the cost to the Australian community of the deleterious effects of alcohol consumption. Honourable senators will understand that to cost something of this nature is a difficult exercise because of the many variable factors that are involved. For example, it would involve designating the proportion of road accident victims whose plight is a result of alcohol consumption or the proportion of hospital admissions resulting from alcohol induced illnesses. Nevertheless, a definitive survey has been carried out by Dr Drew of the Commonwealth Department of Health. His findings give a good indication of the extent of the problem. Dr Drew calculated that 10 per cent of general hospital costs and 15 per cent of psychiatric hospital costs, amounting to $325.6m in 1979-80, could be attributed to alcohol. In addition, outpatient and non- hospital based medical practice costs took the total cost for health services to nearly $950m in the 1979-80 period. If we look at other areas where alcohol has a significant impact, we see that these costs are further compounded. The Office of Road Safety has calculated that in the calendar year 1978-these are the latest figures available to me-the cost to the community of deaths in road accidents was $582m. The cost of road injuries was $437m and of damage to property was a further $752m. Using as a guideline the fact that 50 per cent of fatalities, 20 per cent of injuries and 5 per cent of property damage arises from alcohol related road accidents, the cost in 1978 of alcohol related road accidents was $407m. Allowing for inflation, the figure for the financial year 1979-80 therefore becomes of the order of $450m. According to an unpublished paper of the Australian Foundation on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, alcoholism cost industry $2,415 per employee in 1974-75. That figure is the most recent I have been able to discover. It does not begin to take into account other costs of alcohol use to industry, such as accidents related to occasional alcohol use. However, if the 1974-75 figure is adjusted for inflation, assuming no increase or decrease in the problem, the cost to industry purely from alcoholism in 1979-80 was of the order of $890m. When other costs are included, such as a portion of the cost of law enforcement, alcohol related welfare costs and Government-funded programs aimed at abuse of alcohol, the final cost to the community for 1979-80 was about $2,250m. While, admittedly , not all that figure represents a debit in the Budget, to give some idea of the magnitude of the problem, $2,250m represents about 7 per cent of total Budget outlays in that year. If one applies an implicit price deflater to the figure, the cost in the 1982-83 financial year would have been about $3,060m. The government response to this problem-I add at this point that I refer not to this Government or to the previous Government but to all past governments-has been disappointing to say the least. Contributions to the States for community health programs, only some of which find their way into alcohol and drug abuse programs, have been paltry. In 1980-81, the last year for which this item appeared separately in the Budget papers, the amount granted to the States to be disbursed as they saw fit, was a mere $55m. In that same year revenue from customs and excise on beer and spirits exceeded $900m while State and local governments collected a further $130m in liquor taxes. In its own area of responsibility, the Commonwealth Government has funded the Australian Foundation on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence and its national alcoholism and drug dependence industry programs. These are valuable programs. The national alcoholism and drug dependence industry program covers 74 private industries and 50 public service organisations, representing about 5 per cent of the Australian workforce. It has been estimated that some 80 per cent of all employees detected as suffering from alcohol or drug abuse are returned to adequate work performance. Yet in the 1982 Budget National Alcohol and Drug Dependence Industry Program was allocated a mere half a million dollars and the secretariat of the Australian Foundation on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence a further $360, 000. In 1982-83 the national drug education program, which includes alcohol and its effects, was allocated a further $1.8m to support State and Northern Territory programs. This is a miserable response to a major crisis and a major drain on the finances of the community. It in no way comes close to matching the cost which industry and the community at large has to bear, or the very significant revenues which governments receive from alcohol consumption in this country. I am aware that we have before the Senate at present a Bill sponsored by the Australian Democrats entitled the Liquor Advertising Tax Assessment Bill, which would impose a tax at a rate to be determined on expenditure incurred by companies advertising liquor products. While I am sympathetic with the principle underlying this piece of legislation, namely, the need for a more significant government response to the problem of alcohol abuse in Australia, I do not believe this is the proper way to go about tackling the issue. Alcohol products are already heavily taxed. I am not in favour of further increasing the level of taxation to the point where the Government appears to be making decisions about the life style Australians should be leading by making alcohol unaffordable to the average person. Used sensibly and moderately, alcohol should not represent a danger to the community and it should not be the place of governments to tax moderate consumption out of existence. Although I do not for a moment suggest that this demonstrates moderate consumption, in 1980-81 expenditure on alcohol products was $4,123m. In terms of employment and in terms of the revenue which the industry contributes to governments, the liquor industry already plays a very important part and should not be placed in jeopardy by over-zealous use of the taxing powers of governments. However, I contend that because governments, especially the Federal Government, already receive significant revenues from this industry, there is a strong case for a redirection of resources towards further programs to curb alcohol abuse. I urge the Government to consider this matter in that light and to increase funding out of existing revenue to organisations and programs designed to combat the deleterious effects of alcohol. In this way the Government not only has an opportunity to make a more meaningful contribution to solving this problem but also can assist in reducing losses of productivity in industry, losses and deaths in road accidents and other costs on the community. Given the costs which I have already outlined, I believe the matter now requires the urgent attention of the Government. Senator RYAN(Australian Capital Territory-Minister for Education and Youth Affairs)(7.49) —Senator Kilgariff, in his contribution to the adjournment debate tonight, made a number of criticisms of the Government's uranium policy, and in particular of the policy as he considers it affects the Northern Territory. I will not attempt to respond to those criticisms this evening. I am sure my colleague the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh, will do so at an appropriate time. But I point out that the question of what Australia should do with its uranium resources is a very complex one. Indeed, it is a very controversial one in the community and one to which the Government is giving a great deal of attention and care so that we may resolve it properly, taking into account all of our responsibilities, including our responsibility to ensure the safety of future generations. However, in the course of his remarks Senator Kilgariff suggested that my colleague the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) had made a derogatory response to the Chairman of the Northern Land Council, Mr Gerry Blitner, when Mr Blitner presented Mr Holding with a message stick. I take this opportunity to correct the impression which Senator Kilgariff's comments may have made on honourable senators this evening. I have before me an explanation of the incident by my colleague Mr Holding and I will read it into the Senate record. Mr Holding said that he was given the message stick by the Chairman of the NLC, Mr Blitner, while visiting Galiwinku in the Northern Territory on 20 July. Mr Holding said it was his understanding at the time that the message stick was for him as Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and as a representative of the Australian Government. Mr Holding refers to a Press release issued at the time by the Northern Land Council which explained the significance of the message stick and which states: On July 13 1983 the traditional owners of the Koongarra mine site made a traditional message stick to be delivered to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs for the Australian Government and the people of Australia. Mr Holding continued: Nevertheless, the message stick has now been passed to the Prime Minister (on 22 August). with the necessary explanation as to its meaning. Later he said: It was reported that I failed to respond to the Chairman of the NLC after having received the message stick and the information about the Aboriginal's attitude at Koongarra. In fact, I wrote to Mr Blitner on 4 August, thanking him for the information given to me and assuring him that the views put by the Aboriginals concerned would be considered. I also asked him to convey my thanks to the traditional owners. I do not know whether Mr Blitner did convey my thanks as requested. Mr Holding continued: It is asserted by our political opponents what I said in relation to the message stick was 'I thought it was a clothes peg'. I did not say that. What I said was that 'it looked like a clothes peg'. That was said in the context of providing a description of the message stick to a non-Aboriginal television audience. My words have been irresponsibly misrepresented by our political opponents. Clearly, Mr Holding's words also have been irresponsibly misrepresented in the Senate to- night. I have taken this opportunity to set the record straight. With regard to the matters raised by Senator Crichton-Browne, I believe Senator Crichton-Browne does the Senate a service by drawing our attention yet again to the enormous financial cost-of course, there is also the great social cost-of alcohol abuse in our community. No doubt all honourable senators are aware of this cost, but still it is important that we be reminded of the extent of the cost and the extent of the problem in the community. Senator Crichton-Browne drew attention to the various Commonwealth initiatives which have been taken by successive governments to try to set up some machinery for assisting people who have become alcohol abusers. He acknowledged that their efforts have had some effect although, on behalf of the Government, I agree with Senator Crichton- Browne that these efforts could be increased because the extent of the problem is very great. I will make sure that my colleague the Minister for Health, Dr Neal Blewett, is made aware of the concerns Senator Crichton-Browne raised this evening. I am pleased to note that there will be a bipartisan approach to the steps we can take, as members of the Senate and as members of this Parliament, to assist the community in overcoming these problems. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(7.53) —I apologise for having missed my earlier call to speak in the adjournment debate. I do not wish to hold up the Senate for long, but I have one matter to bring to the attention of the Senate. I refer to the wine tax, about which I have spoken before, that is being applied by the Government in the latest Budget. I draw the Senate's attention to a letter I received the other day from the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr John Kerin, dated 7 September 1983 wherein he drew my attention to the fact that it was not 'very helpful for you to designate the grape spirit excise as a wine tax '. This is an important matter and shows the depth of misunderstanding by this Government of the nature of the wine industry for the Minister to put his signature under a letter of that kind. As I have pointed out in my earlier remarks, there is not merely one aspect of the wine industry. The spirit side and the table wine side of the industry are integrated; they are totally interlocked. The whole concept of spirit production relates to the maintenance of stability for the ordinary grape grower, particularly in South Australia. The Government does not appreciate that. It looks as though I will have to stand here many times to make that point to the Government until it realises exactly what the nature of the industry is and how it is destroying the industry by this kind of approach. I do not intend to press that matter much further because of the time. There is just one other aspect of the problem on which I wish to comment. It was drawn to my attention today by an article that appeared in last night's Daily News in Perth which quoted the adventure of one Mr Gavin Troy, who is a former Labor member for the State seat of Mundaring in Western Australia. Apparently Mr Troy made a special trip to Canberra in the last few days to see the Minister for Primary Industry in connection with this problem of wine excise. I point that out because it shows that it is not only South Australians who are interested in this matter; it is a very widespread problem within the wine industry and it appears to be a bipartisan concern. Upon Mr Troy's return to Perth he apparently reported certain things to the Daily News. The newspaper states: A bureaucratic blunder is responsible for the reintroduced excise on fortified wine, it was claimed today. Former Mundaring MLA Mr Gavin Troy made the claim after a meeting with the Federal Treasurer, Mr Keating, in Canberra today. Mr Troy, who lost his seat in a Court of Disputed Returns decision last week, also met with the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Kerin. Mr Troy today said he was 'quietly confident' that the excise would be amended later this month. He said it was clear the Canberra bureaucracy did not know what it was doing when it advised the Government on the grape spirit excise. I think that speaks for itself. I find it rather surprising that, after raising this matter by way of questions and in the adjournment debate on at least three or four occasions in the last few days, we can get no answer from the Government as to its reasons for introducing this tax. Yet a person who is a former Labor member of Parliament in the State House in Western Australia can get a private audience with the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and come away with a story such as that and have it quoted in the Press. I find it amazing that this Government has so little concern for the interests of South Australians in particular when at least two honourable senators in this House and one honourable member in the House of Representatives have constantly raised this issue since the Budget and can get no response whatsoever from the Government. On one occasion the Attorney -General (Senator Gareth Evans) made it clear that this was a terribly tedious matter and that he just wanted to get out of the chamber; he did not want to answer us at all. I find that a disgusting way to treat the Opposition. I hope the Government will have a response for us by the time the Senate meets next Tuesday. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 7.59 p.m. The following papers were presented: Public Service Act- Appointment-Department of Housing and Construction-Mr M. Griffin. Determination 1983-No. 17. Remuneration Tribunals Act-Remuneration Tribunal-Determination 1983/4- Remuneration payable to holders of certain public offices-Member, elected as deputy chairman, Repatriation Commission and others, together with an explanatory statement, dated 22 August 1983. The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 111 Senator Bolkus asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 4 May 1983: Has the Attorney-General's attention been drawn to an article in the May 1983 edition of Australian Penthouse by Dr Geoffrey Smith of Melbourne entitled 'I Spy', which raised questions about the Pine Gap space base and the activities of Australian and United States intelligence organisations in this country, if so: (a) Was there a 'John Simmons' in the Federal Attorney-General's office in Canberra last year who rang Dr Smith and quizzed him about an article he had written for Australian Penthouse entitled 'The Pine Gap Puzzle', claiming he had breached the provisions of a D notice; and if so, what was the position of this person employed by the Attorney-General's office last year and who instructed him to ring Dr Smith. (b) Has the Australian Government had official advice as to the operations in Australia of Task Force 157. (c) Was Task Force 157 set up by United States intelligence agencies to undermine the Australian Government and has it operated as claimed by Dr Smith; and (d) Is there any substance in the reported claim that representatives from United States intelligence organisations in Australia questioned and threatened Dr Smith. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: My attention has been drawn to the article in question. (a) There was no person of the name of John Simmons employed in the Federal Attorney-General's Office in Canberra or elsewhere last year. No D notice, all of which are on the public record, covers any of the matters in the article entitled 'The Pine Gap Puzzle'. (b) and (c) I have no knowledge of these matters. (d) If threats were made to Dr Smith he should make a formal complaint to the Police. Question No. 208 Senator Martin asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 26 May 1983: (1) What are the current arrangements for the transmission of programs by Radio Australia to Africa and southern Africa in particular. (2) Has Radio Australia, in view of Australia's internationally acknowledged agricultural expertise, examined the possiblity of transmitting material for countries like Zimbabwe which emphasise land use and farming techniques; if so, with what result and if not, why not and will the Minister for Communications ask Radio Australia to pursue an examination of such possible programs especially in the light of the drought experienced in both continents. (3) In what countries and in what cities does the ABC: (a) have permanent employees stationed as broadcasting representatives or program producers; and (b ) pay for such services from non-employees. (4) What are the names of such persons in each category in (3) and for how long will each of the current arrangements apply. (5) What are the current arrangements in Zimbabwe and under what circumstances and in terms of what time frame would the ABC post an officer in Harare, Zimbabwe. (6) Would the posting of such an officer significantly improve understanding between Australia and Zimbabwe. Senator Button —The Minister for Communications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question, based on advice from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation: (1) Radio Australia broadcasts to Africa in English from 0400-0500 GMT and from 0600-0630 GMT. Radio Australia broadcasts to Africa in French from 0500-0600. (2) Africa is identified as belonging to the secondary areas of target importance for Radio Australia. These areas cannot be serviced adequately from Australian-based transmitters. They may require coverage from time to time via shortwave relay stations. Radio Farm Forum was broadcast until March 1983 when the program was discontinued, as resources available for its production were inadequate and the product considered unsatisfactory. The situation is under review. (3) (a) The Australian Broadcasting Corporation maintains 12 permanent offices overseas. They are at: London-Manager for Europe plus 5 'A' based correspondents and 11 locally engaged office staff. Brussels-One 'A' based correspondent (Representative) plus one locally engaged office staff. New York-Manager for North America plus 4 'A' based correspondents and 5 locally engaged office staff. Washington-One 'A' based correspondent and one locally engaged staff. Singapore-Manager for Asia plus one 'A' based correspondent and 11 locally engaged office staff. Jakarta-Six locally engaged staff on contract dealing with Radio Australia correspondence, booklets, etc. New Delhi-One 'A' based correspondent (Representative). Tokyo-One 'A' based correspondent (Representative) and one locally engaged office staff. Bangkok-One 'A' based correspondent (Representative) Peking-One 'A' based correspondent (Representative) Port Moresby-One 'A' based correspondent (Representative) Kuala Lumpur-One locally engaged journalist employed full time. (b) Contributions are accepted from freelance journalists throughout the world. Many are regular contributors to the news and public affairs programs, while others are assigned on an ad hoc basis as news developments warrant their use. (4) European Office-London Manager for Europe-S. L. Revill Chief Correspondent-I. Macintosh Correspondents-R. Morgan, P. George, G. Dobell, J. Highfield Brussels ABC Representative-M. Downing North American Office-New York Manager for North America-E. T. Colhoun Correspondents-M. P. Gillam, J. Middleton, T. Hughes, J. McMullen Washington Correspondent-R. D. Palfreyman Singapore Manager for Asia-J. A. Hollinshead Correspondent-R. Wurth New Delhi ABC Representative-J. J. Mills Tokyo ABC Representative-P. Cave Bangkok ABC Representative-P. Lokyer Peking ABC Representative-H. Chung Papua New Guinea ABC Representative-S. Dorney Staff in London, Brussels, New York, Washington, Singapore, Tokyo and Bangkok are appointed for an initial three year period. Those in New Delhi, Peking and Port Moresby for an initial two year period. (5) In Zimbabwe, as in other parts of Africa, the ABC: (a) uses accredited free-lance journalists; (b) ABC staff, including film crews, principally from the London Office and Australia on special assignment; and (c) despatches from other broadcasting organisations and from international News Services to which the ABC subscribes. ABC News is keen to develop its network of staff correspondents overseas and the African continent is high on the priority list in this regard. However, it is a costly exercise and it is unlikely that a posting to Africa will take place in the current financial year. The choice of a location for a correspondent in Africa will depend on numerous factors additional to the news-worthiness of the area. These factors include the availability of facilities and the geographical convenience of the location in terms of the need to move rapidly to other parts of the continent. (6) It is not possible to predict what the effect of such a posting would be; however, the decision would be made in the light of possible reactions from other countries. Question No. 254 Senator Missen asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs , upon notice, on 23 August 1983: (1) Does Dr Kim Dae Jung, the former South Korean Opposition Leader, have a South Korean passport which the South Korean Government has designated as only being valid for entry into and exit from South Korea and the United States. (2) Is this designation in breach of international law or accepted international arrangements; if so, in what way. (3) Has Dr Kim lived in exile in Alexandria, Virginia in the United States since December 1982. (4) Will the Australian Government give approval for Dr Kim to enter Australia on a normal visitor's visa for a brief period to undertake speaking engagements whatever the status of his South Korean travel documents; if not, why not. (5) Will the Minister for Foreign Affairs meet with Dr Kim, if approval for such a visit is given and if a mutually convenient time can be arranged, so that the Minister and the Government will have the benefit of his knowledge and experience in relation to political developments in South Korea. (6) What, if any, would be the limitations placed on his entry and exit to and from Australia and what other limitations, if any, would be placed on him. (7) Was Dr Kim in gaol or detention for most of the period between 1973 and 1982 on charges relating to his non-violent opposition to recent South Korean Governments. (8) Did Dr Kim say on 10 June 1983, in a prepared and widely circulated speech to the Annual General Meeting of the American Section of Amnesty International, at Emory University in the United States of America: In 1973, the KCIA (Korean Central Intelligence Agency) kidnapped me from a hotel room (Grand Palace Hotel) in Tokyo (while en route to a speaking engagement at Harvard University concerning opposition to Park Chung Hee's Government). Its agents (KCIA) first tried to kill me in the room, but were interrupted. Then they attempted to throw me overboard into the ocean only to be foiled by active United States intervention. Finally, in 1980, General Chun Doo Hwan sentenced me to death on trumped-up charges. (9) Did Dr Kim secure 46 per cent of the popular vote in the 1971 presidential election in South Korea. (10) Were there widespread public and newspaper claims alleging vote-rigging by the candidate who became President after the 1971 election, and by his supporters; if so, what were the key elements of the allegations and what view did the Department of Foreign Affairs form about their accuracy. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's questions: (1) Yes. (2) No. (3) Yes. (4), (5) and (6) Entry to Australia is a matter within the portfolio responsibility of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I am not aware of Mr Kim having expressed a desire to visit Australia. But should he ask to visit Australia, I am sure that the Government would consider his request sympathetically. Should Mr Kim wish to convey views to the Government by any means I would be happy to learn of them. (7) Mr Kim has been in prison or under house arrest for most of the period 1973 -82. The various charges under ROK law laid against Mr Kim arose from his position and activities as a leading opposition politician. So far as I am aware , Mr Kim has never advocated violence in his opposition to ROK governments. (8) Yes. (9) Mr Kim received 45.26 per cent of the valid votes cast in the 1971 election ; or 43.45 of total votes cast (i.e. valid and invalid). (10) There were allegations by Mr Kim, his New Democratic Party and others of electoral irregularities. At this distance, however, it is difficult to say precisely how widely their views were shared in the ROK. Mr Kim and the New Democratic Party accused the successful Democratic Republican Party of bribing voters, abuse of administrative power and irregularities in the preparation of voters' rolls, balloting and vote counting. At the time, the advice to the Department of Foreign Affairs from our Embassy in Seoul was that while irregularities undoubtedly did occur, these were probably not enough to influence the outcome of the election. It was considered that the outcome was determined more by the advantages of incumbency, which were certainly used to considerable affect by President Park and his party.