Wednesday, 5 October 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: Sex Discrimination Legislation To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 contains provisions inconsistent with principles of justice and equality which could be used to undermine civil liberties and religious freedoms. entrench abortion funding and render liable to action hospitals, doctors and nurses who consciously refuse to become involved in morally objectionable operations. deny to parents their rights to insist that the school ''community'' provide an environment conducive to the development, including the moral development of their children. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled: should amend the Bill so as to prevent the possibility of its use in the manner stated above and urge, because of the importance to society of the principles involved, that a conscience vote on the Bill be permitted to all members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Harradine (from 240 citizens), Tate (from 470 citizens), Townley ( from 112 citizens) and Walters (from 161 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That your petitioners are concerned about foreign owned military bases on Australian territory and the entry into Australian waters and territory of foreign warships and aircraft carrying nuclear weaponry. And that the Australian Government should take an active and constructive role in the promotion of a nuclear-free world. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should: 1. Promote the expression of Australian sovereignty by legislating to bring foreign military bases on Australian territory under the control of the Australian Government. 2. Make it compulsory that the disclosure of weaponry carried by foreign warships and aircraft be given in confidence to the Australian Government prior to a request for entry. And that foreign warships and aircraft that carry nuclear weaponry be banned from Australian waters and territory. 3. Legislate for the cessation of all uranium mining in Australia and its subsequent export. 4. Urge the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to pose to the Governments of the United States and the Soviet Union that both countries agree to immediately halt the testing, production and further deployment of all nuclear weapons, missiles and delivery systems in a way that can be checked and verified by both sides. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 245 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully submit that: Although many occurrences of sexual harrassment in the workforce have been reported to various State government authorities, such as the Victorian Commission for Equal Opportunity, the real incidence of sexual intimidation in employment will not be known, or countered, until a national policy towards sexual harrassment is determined and implemented. We therefore submit that: 1. The National Committee on Discrimination in Employment and Occupation be commissioned to conduct a nation-wide study of discrimination based on sex, both in the private sector and the Public Service, with a view to advising the Government on the development of national policy. 2. The major priority of such study should be to determine a legally- enforceable definition of sexual harrassment. 3. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations should bring forward in Parliament legislation, arising from such a study, to outlaw discrimination and intimidation in employment based on sex. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robert Ray (from 39 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully shows: We, the undersigned citizens of Australia, concerned with the cut in funding to the Brisbane Airport, concerned that this cut means loss of jobs, concerned that this cut could seriously affect the economy of Queensland. Humbly petition the Senate to request the Australian Government to: 1. Reverse its decision to cut funding to the Brisbane Airport. 2. Abide by the guarantee given by the Minister for Housing and Construction that the Airport would receive priority funding. 3. Assure the citizens of Queensland that the Brisbane Airport as the domestic and economic gateway to this State will be fully completed by 1987. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Martin (from five citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the 1983 Budget imposition of the excise on grape spirit used in fortifying wine places at risk the future of the fortified wine industry in Australia. That the requirement to pay the excise within 7 days of the fortification occurring is inequitable. That the excise will be reflected in increased costs to the consumers of fortified wines of up to 100 per cent and consumer choice will be restricted. That this will cause reduced fortified wine sales which will result in reduced intake of grapes from grapegrowers. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government will reconsider their previous decision and either withdraw this tax or modify its method of application and collection. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Haines (from 160 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate of Australia in Parliament assembled. This petition of members of the New South Wales Retired Teachers Association concerned with the assets/means/income test of pensioners respectfully showeth that: We call on the Government to dispense with the asset/ means/income test for aged persons bringing Australia into line with other western countries and thus saving the fears and confusion of our pensioners and avoiding the many areas of evasion at present practised. The aged have paid for these pensions in taxes over the years and the government will benefit from extra taxation from the pensions given. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the honourable Minister: Government dispense with the assets/means/income test for pensioners. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Robertson (from 64 citizens). Petitions received. Senator JONES(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes with concern the failure of the Bjelke-Petersen Government to divulge the true parlous state of the Queensland economy; (b) deplores the failure of the Bjelke-Petersen Government to seek diversified markets for the State's coal exports which has resulted in increasing unemployment in the coal industry; (c) expresses deep concern that the Premier of Queensland, who has presided over that State's economic decline, has now seized control of Treasury and is threatening to squander vast sums of taxpayers' money on such expensive and discredited projects as the Bradfield Scheme; (d) deplores the Queensland minority Government's blatant use of the State Government aircraft, public service staff, Government motor vehicles and other material from Ministerial offices for party political electioneering at taxpayers' expense in its desperate and vain bid to cling to power. Notice of Motion Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution so that the number of members of the House of Representatives may be increased without necessarily increasing the number of senators. Senator JONES(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) Deplores the anti-Australian policies of the Bjelke-Petersen Government in its preferential treatment of foreign interests attempting to buy up large tracts of prime rural land in Queensland; (b) urges that more efforts are made to ensure that Australian investors are given a better opportunity of control of rural land ownership in Queensland; (c) focuses attention on the extent of foreign ownership and control of Queensland rural properties; (d) calls upon the Queensland Government to immediately establish a register of foreign owned and controlled land in Queensland. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) agreed to: That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend laws relating to companies and securities. Bill presented, and read a first time. Standing Orders suspended. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.05) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I am introducing today a Bill pursuant to the Commonwealth's obligations under the co-operative companies and securities scheme. I would like to outline, for the benefit of honourable senators, the administrative and legislative context in which the Bill has been prepared, and some of the principal amendments proposed. A detailed description of the provisions of the Bill is contained in the explanatory memorandum which has been circulated to honourable senators for information. CO-OPERATIVE COMPANIES AND SECURITIES SCHEME The formal agreement executed by the Commonwealth and all the States on 22 December 1978 provides the framework for a co-operative Commonwealth-State scheme for a uniform system of law and administration regulating the companies and securities industry. The scheme covers the relevant law operating in the six States and the Australian Capital Territory. In accordance with the formal agreement, this legislation has been agreed to by the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities. If passed by this Parliament, it will have the effect of automatically amending the corresponding State legislation. As indicated in our business regulation policy, the Government considers that the co-operative scheme should be retained while it demonstrates progress in the achievement of its aims. However, in the longer term we would prefer to move to a national system of companies and securities regulation administered by the national Parliament. Neither system can be effective if it does not extend to the whole of Australia, including the Northern Territory. I am currently corresponding with the Northern Territory Government seeking its entry to the scheme. LAW REFORM PROGRAM It is the view of the Government that reform of companies and securities law is a high priority. The need for reform of the law is recognised by all governments in Australia, by the commercial community and the investing public. These reforms will take place on a number of fronts. First, there are Bills such as the one that I am introducing today. This is the first significant reforming Bill in the companies and securities area for quite some time. Up to now, changes made in the co-operative companies and securities legislation have generally been more of a fine tuning than a law reform nature. Work is already proceeding on the next in the series of Bills of this nature and I would anticipate that an exposure draft would be released for public comment in 1984. In addition to work of this nature, I am confident that there will be a quantum leap forward in this field with the establishment of the Companies and Securities Law Review Committee and the Accounting Standards Review Board. As promised in the business regulation policy statement, the Commonwealth Government has been active in ensuring the establishment of these bodies. The Ministerial Council has decided that the Companies and Securities Law Review Committee will be in operation as from the start of next year. This Committee will be charged with the function of undertaking root and branch reform of the law. Establishment of the Committee will enable examination of fundamental issues of company law in a systematic fashion rather than on the basis of ad hoc amendments to meet individual difficulties emerging from the administration of the scheme legislation. References to the Committee will be determined by the Ministerial Council following consultation with members of the Committee. This Bill lays the groundwork for the establishment of the Accounting Standards Review Board which will start operations on 1 January 1984. The Accounting Standards Review Board will consider existing and proposed accounting standards prepared by the joint accounting bodies through the Australian Accounting Research Foundation and legislative backing will be given to those standards. This, I anticipate, will improve the quality of financial reporting and will result in more meaningful information being given to investors, creditors, and employees. Although this Bill contains some significant amendments affecting corporate insolvencies, and in particular receiverships, it does not reflect a fundamental overhaul of the provisions relating to winding up. Accordingly, I am now considering giving the Australian Law Reform Commission a general reference on insolvency. The reference would need to contain clear directions to the Law Reform Commission to collaborate closely with the various bodies concerned with companies and securities law and administration. I am having discussions with the State members of the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities on this question and hope to be in a position to announce further details in the not too distant future. PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON BILL I should emphasise that the Bill takes account of the many contributions that have been made in public submissions over the years. Some of the proposals in the Bill such as those relating to the objects and powers of companies can be traced to the calls made by the commercial community in submissions on the Companies Bill 1980 to further limit the scope of the doctrine of ultra vires as it affects the impact of actions by company officers on third parties. Other aspects of the Bill, such as those concerning the statements and reports to be prepared by company directors, reflect the comments made on the exposure draft of the Bill that was released for public comment in December 1982. The exposure draft was given considerable attention by the commercial community with over 100 submissions being received. In most instances these submissions have been prepared by busy professionals in their spare time and I am grateful for their constructive contributions. CONTENT OF BILL An outline of the principal features of the Bill and in particular the main changes it makes to existing companies and securities legislation is set out at paragraphs 23 and 24 of the explanatory memorandum which has been circulated. I will briefly mention some of the more important amendments. OBJECTS AND POWERS OFCOMPANIES The Bill in clause 34 contains provisions which replace sections 67 and 68 of the Companies Act with new provisions designed to ensure that, unless it determines otherwise in its constituent documents, a company has the powers of a natural person. The related question of whether or not companies should be required to have specified objects was tackled in the exposure draft of the Bill by the preparation of alternative provisions, one set requiring companies to have objects and the other containing no such requirements. The overwhelming majority of commentators favoured companies not being required to have specified objects and this view is reflected in the Bill. REMEDIES FOR SHAREHOLDERS IN CASES OF OPPRESSION Significant amendments are made in clause 89 of the Bill to the remedies available to aggrieved shareholders where they believe that the affairs of a company are being conducted in an oppressive manner. The categories of conduct which would give rise to a remedy will be broadened so as to overcome a number of restrictive interpretations which the courts have placed on the precursors to the present provision, section 320 of the Companies Act. DIRECTORS' STATEMENTS REPORTS There are amendments to section 269 of the Companies Act concerning preparation of the directors statement accompanying the accounts which will improve the usefulness of the informations now provided by directors. Directors will now be required by clause 80 of the Bill to advise persons reading the accounts of relevant circumstances that have arisen and information that has become available since the end of the financial year to which the accounts relate. The Bill takes account of concerns that were expressed in response to these provisions as they appeared in the exposure draft by enabling this update on the accounts to be completed up to eight weeks before an annual general meeting rather than within the period of six weeks prior to the meeting. Similarly, the provisions modifying the content of the directors reports as required by section 270 of the Companies Act have undergone significant changes in the light of public comments on the exposure draft. Directors will now be required by clause 81 of the Bill to furnish in their reports a review of the operations of the company and of the expected results of those operations; to note any significant changes in the state of affairs of the company; and to refer to any likely developments in the operations of the company in future years. These new requirements will produce more informative reports but, at the same time, companies will not be required to disclose information which would, in the opinion of the directors, be prejudicial to the interests of the company. TRACING BENEFICIAL INTERESTS IN SHARES The Bill also extends the operation of the provisions currently contained in section 261 of the Companies Act which enable tracing of beneficial interests in shareholdings. Relatively minor amendments were proposed in the exposure draft released in December 1982. Following calls from directors and shareholders for more extensive amendments to enable inquiries to be initiated as to the beneficial ownership of shareholdings, new proposals were released for comment in April 1983. These provisions contained in clause 76 of the Bill will put directors and shareholders in a better position to ascertain the identity of the persons whose voting power may affect a company's operations. PURPOSIVE INTERPRETATION Clause 132 of the Bill inserts a new provision in the Companies and Securities (Interpretation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act that will require the courts, when interpreting co-operative scheme legislation, to have regard to the purpose or object of the relevant legislation. The provision is similar to that contained in section 15AA of the Acts Interpretation Act. It is hoped that this provision will ensure that a less legalistic approach to interpretation is taken by the courts and that greater regard is had to the objectives of the co- operative scheme, as spelt out in the formal agreement as well as in the constituent legislative codes. OTHER AMENDMENTS Other clauses in the Bill designed to improve the operation of the co-operative scheme legislation are: (a) clause 17, which amends section 60 of the Companies (Acquisition of Shares) Act to enable the National Companies and Securities Commission to make a declaration of unacceptable conduct under the takeover code even though a Part A statement has not been served or a takeover announcement made; (b) clause 31, which inserts proposed sections 30A to 30S of the Companies Act so as to make adequate provision for the conduct of hearings by the Companies Auditors and Liquidators Disciplinary Board; (c) clause 68, which is designed to give greater flexibility to the administration of the prospectus and prescribed interests provisions; (d) clause 74, which rationalises the requirements of section 241 of the Companies Act for convening meetings upon requisition of members; and (e) clause 93, which inserts proposed sections 324A to 324F of the Companies Act so as to clarify the powers and duties of receivers. Some of these provisions were not included in the exposure draft, but are considered sufficiently important to warrant legislation action at this stage. LODGMENT OF ACCOUNTS BY EXEMPT PROPRIETARY COMPANIES Many people will no doubt be relieved to see that the Bill does not contain any provisions requiring exempt proprietary companies to lodge accounts with the National Companies and Securities Commission. During the public exposure period, comments were sought on a proposal made jointly by the Australian Society of Accountants and the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia that exempt proprietary companies should be required to lodge accounts with the NCSC whether or not those accounts were audited. The Ministerial Council has decided that, in the light of public criticism of this proposal and of the work being done by the NCSC on Schedule 7 of the Companies Regulations and the financial reporting requirements of the Companies Act, no such amendment should be made at this stage. It was considered more appropriate for the issues raised by the joint accounting bodies to be considered in the context of a general examination of the use of the corporate form to be undertaken by the proposed Companies and Securities Law Review Committee. FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT Finally, I should make some references to the financial impact that this Bill will have on government revenues. As mentioned previously, this Bill puts in place machinery to enable accounting standards approved by the proposed Accounting Standards Review Board to have the force of law. The Board will commence operations from the start of 1984. The Ministerial Council has authorised interim arrangements on a restricted funding basis for the Board's operations for the period 1 January to 30 June using NCSC staff and facilities to service the Board. The estimated cost of these arrangements is $35 ,000. In the first full year of the Board's operations with its own staff and premises, the cost of the Board's operations is expected to be $235,000 and $195 ,000 in subsequent years, of which 50 per cent is to be funded by the Commonwealth and the other 50 per cent by the States on a pro rata basis. Although this Bill does not contain provisions relating to the Companies and Securities Law Review Committee that I mentioned earlier, the expected cost to the Commonwealth of its 50 per cent contribution would be $70,000 in the current financial year, based on a 1 January 1984 commencement, and $140,000 in a full year. The Government commends the Companies and Securities Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Durack) adjourned. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans) proposed: That the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.17) —I wish to speak very briefly to this motion. I make my comments really by way of a question to the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans). The Companies and Securities Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill is a very detailed Bill, as he will acknowledge. It has been the subject of an exposure draft and a great deal of public consultation, which he referred to in his second reading speech. I should like him to indicate, firstly, whether he intends to make available to the Senate any precis or details of the submissions that have been received, particularly the ones that have not been acceded to by the Government, for the purpose of having a more intelligent debate on the second reading and, secondly, what his timetable will be in relation to the consideration of these matters. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.18) —in reply-As to the first point, I think perhaps the best way of proceeding would be to undertake, as I now do, to make available departmental officers, including in particular Mr Kennedy and Mr Starr, to give such briefing to honourable senators as they would require as to the content of the Companies and Securities Legislation ( Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill, and in particular as to the content and Government response to any submissions that are received on the exposure draft. Such is the mass of paper that exists in relation to this measure, since it has been exposed for a large number of months, as the shadow Attorney-General would be well aware, that that is probably a more sensible course of action than to try to think in terms of tabling a bundle of material. Certainly on a measure of this kind there is no question but that full briefing will be available. Indeed, I understand some such briefing has already been set in train this morning. As to the timing of the debate, I note that, as is the practice with Bills such as this, the Bill was made available to the Opposition and the Australian Democrats , and I think Senator Harradine as well, some days ago, although not a terribly long time ago. Senator Durack —We have not been free to discuss it. Senator GARETH EVANS —I appreciate that. Under those circumstances, I am sure we would react sympathetically to any request to hold over the debate on this for longer than the ordinary period of a week between introduction and debate. I cannot make any such final undertaking now because it does depend on the overall shape of the Government's legislative program. There are a number of matters which seem to be the subject of request for deferral. But certainly we will do our best to accommodate the very reasonable request that has been made by Senator Durack. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 22 September 1983, on motion by Senator Walsh: That the Senate take note of the papers and the statement. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(10.22) —I welcome the opportunity to discuss the Budget as far as it effects the Australian Capital Territory because the Budget in Canberra is much more than just a Federal Budget. It is at the same time our State budget and our municipal budget. So we need to examine it from all points of view. Of course, the underlying and important theme of the whole document is the extent to which it assists in providing more jobs in this community, and I will address myself to that as I go through the Budget Papers. One of the difficulties we are faced with is the statement of the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) made in the papers he released that ' Canberra has done well in a tight Budget framed in difficult economic circumstances'. This led to the Canberra Times headline 'Canberra does well in the Budget: Uren'. This is the sort of statement that is totally harmful to our position. Many people in Australia seem to regard Canberra as a pampered community which does not pay rates and does not pay its way. However, one will find when the Commonwealth Grants Commission presents its report that this is not correct. A document recently produced by the Parliamentary Library on the geography of electorates shows a number of relevant facts as far as Canberra is concerned. For the Minister to put out a statement which allowed Canberra to be presented in this way is really rather irresponsible because the figures do not in fact reflect an allocation for the Australian Capital Territory up by 19 per cent as he said in the way in which he presented it. Let us just have a closer look at the figures that relate to the Australian Capital Territory. The Department of Territories and Local Government was allocated an $8.6m or 6.2 per cent increase on last year's figure. We all remember the Budget Speech of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) which indicated that the inflation rate for the last 12 months was 11.5 per cent. So there is no way that we can turn a 6.2 per cent increase into an 11 .5 per cent increase and certainly not a 19 per cent increase. The allocation in those areas administered by the Department of Territories and Local Government- the Minister's own Department-is considerably down on what it was last year. The Budget of the National Capital Development Commission has been increased by $13.5m or 11.96 per cent, which is just short of the inflation rate but is substantially the same amount of money as last year. The increase that is relevant is that portion relating to the new Parliament House-a 58 per cent or $ 34.7m increase. As was said in the Canberra Times article, $90.1m has been made available to maintain the progress of that building which is a national project, a national monument, to be finished by 1988. There is not one amongst us who would not want it to be finished on time and to have its financing maintained at the appropriate rate to do so. To lump that figure in with Australian Capital Territory finances is misleading indeed. Of course, in Canberra we welcome national projects for the jobs that they provide in our community, but we also want the financial set-up to be described in a way that is meaningful and the national projects and local expenditure clearly identified so that it is not made to look as though we are getting all the extra money. To return to the Department of Territories and Local Government, there is a fall-off in services and a lowering of the maintenance cost of parks, gardens, recreation areas and reserves. There is a cutback, effectively, in the budget of the Tourist Bureau of the Australian Capital Territory. I will deal with that again. There is a cutback in the amount of money allocated for bushfire control. It is to be hoped that the bushfires which plagued this Territory last summer are not repeated this year. There is a cutback in the money for the operation of Lake Burley Griffin and for lighting and cleaning in non-municipal areas. In a number of areas there is a reduction in the amount of money allocated. Interestingly enough, at the same time there is an increase in motor vehicle registration fees and motor vehicle licence fees. All the people in this community know that they are paying higher rates this year. There is an increase in sewerage rates. It is very clear that in the Australian Capital Territory we are paying more for less. Two days after the presentation of the Budget it was announced that the rent for Government houses would be increased. In presenting these Papers the Minister claimed that there would be 1,600 additional jobs as a result of this Budget. I invite him to spell out where these jobs will occur and from where the funds are to come. I see no evidence to support this claim. Certainly not from the figures presented can one see any area where that could be the result. Hopefully, the buildings and projects that have been referred to-the National Biological Standards Laboratory and others- will occur and will develop. The Canberra Association for Regional Development has asked that there be a plan for a five-year building and construction program in the Australian Capital Territory. That has not been agreed to and presented. I can understand government's difficulty with it, but it is to be hoped that the projects that have been mentioned will proceed and that the funds will be allocated for that purpose in future years. Within the budget of the NCDC-I welcome this decision-500 government houses are to be constructed, 50 of which will be allocated to elderly people and will be suitable for them. There is to be an increase in land servicing, which is also necessary. Thirty million dollars of the Budget is for the purpose of servicing 2,500 blocks of land during the next 12 months. The Government's role is very significant as far as construction is concerned in the national capital, and always has been. I think it is necessary that government recognises the lead that it needs to show in this area. I hope that the withholding tax which was introduced will not greatly increase costs and will not cause disruption to the industry, as the industry certainly feels it will. There are a number of smaller projects in the NCDC's program, which I welcome, as they will fill community needs and finish off work which has been commenced in a number of areas. I will not go through them all now. The Canberra Times referred to the Budget as 'not perfect'. In particular it referred to the fact that there was a complete mix-up as far as national and local activities were concerned. I ask the Minister to take note of these comments and to see that in future the Budget is presented in a more meaningful way. It is necessary that it be seen that Canberra residents are not, as the Canberra Times said, a pampered lot and have not been given an increase in funds that is equivalent to the inflation rate over the last 12 months. It was described by Senator Jack Evans on radio locally a couple of days after the Budget as a band-aid Budget. In some respects that is a description which applies also in Canberra. From my point of view, the most significant area where the Budget falls down is in the area of tourism and the Government's recognition of the place of tourism in the Australian Capital Territory. The Budget really was quite definite about the place of tourism in Australia and the allocation to the Australian Tourist Commission went up 75 per cent. I certainly welcome that; I think it is money well spent. When we think of what other countries spend on tourism-Singapore, for example-it is necessary that we lift our game, so to speak, as far as promotion is concerned. But I seriously regret that the Minister for Territories and Local Government does not see it that way as far as Canberra is concerned. The amount for promotion of tourism is $500,000, the same as last year. It has not even kept up with the inflation rate. The Canberra Development Board in its annual report of the previous year referred to tourism and said that tourism offered the best opportunities to develop new jobs quickly. It is necessary to diversify jobs in this community in order to give a wider range of choice for all young people and for it not to be just a Public Service town. I do not think anybody disagrees with the fact that it would be a more interesting and more lively community if we could diversify and offer opportunities in other areas. It was with great disappointment that I noted the Minister's attitude to tourism in Canberra by the amount he allocated in the Budget for tourism promotion. In addition, $30,000-the same as last year-is the contribution to the promotion by the Canberra Visitor and Convention Bureau, again on a dollar for dollar basis. But last year the Canberra Visitor and Convention Bureau spent $80,000, of which the Government contributed $30,000. The Bureau certainly put in a great deal more than a dollar for dollar. The local tourist industry is helping itself and doing what it can, and I think the Government's attitude is very disappointing indeed. We were entitled to expect more. Let us look at what was said during the election campaign. The Canberra Times on 18 February 1983 had an article entitled 'ALP Plans to Upgrade ACT Tourism'. It stated: A Labor Government would upgrade the access roads to Canberra, begin immediate talks with the New South Wales Government to improve the rail link and make air travel more attractive, according to the Member for Canberra, Mrs Kelly. Certainly, we have seen the XPT since then. The article continued: She said she had talked to the ALP's spokesman on tourism, Mr Brown, and both had agreed that the ACT could have a much bigger tourist industry. I wish they would talk to our local Minister and impress him in the same way. The article continued: 'The development of tourism in Canberra will be a high priority under a Labor Government', she said. Air travel would be improved by abolishing the add-on airfare for overnight stays in Canberra, allowing more flexibility for off-peak travel and package deals, and by having Canberra airport upgraded quickly. All we have seen so far as that matter is concerned is the $115,000 for a study of the Canberra airport. The article continued: Mrs Kelly said the ALP was committed to a convention centre for Canberra, without the requirement for a casino. It supported the White Industry proposal which provides for a five-star hotel and convention centre. Because tourism was labour intensive, it would be an excellent way to diversify Canberra's employment base, she said. Private-sector tourism development proposals for Canberra would be given a high priority by a Labor government. How disappointing for those who believed this and felt that tourism would flourish under a Labor Government, because it clearly is not happening. The White Industries Ltd proposal, which had been approved prior to the election, has not moved forward in the slightest. I understand that for some reason it is back before Cabinet. It has been held up now for seven months. It will involve about 600 jobs in construction, which we need, and about 1,200 jobs will be available when the project is completed. In spite of promises we are still waiting for something to happen. We need the office space as Senator Gietzelt will tell you, Madam Acting Deputy President. Only recently, in this place, he explained the difficulties that his Department had in finding office space for the Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service. That service has now found an office but Senator Gietzelt is aware of the need for this White Industries development to go ahead. The Budget states that 6,500 extra jobs are to be created in the Public Service. Of course, they would be spread throughout the country, but it would be expected that a number of them would be created here. The Department of Social Security would gain an extra 2,500 positions. If they are to be here at least let us get on with the construction program that will enable us to have office space in which to house them. The other part of the Budget to which I wish to refer relates to the allocation for incentives. We fought hard to get incentives. They were recognised by the Liberal Government, for the first time, and an amount of $750,000 was included in the previous Budget for the Canberra Development Board to attract industry and business to the Australian Capital Territory. That Board has been very successful. Just over $100,000 of that amount was actually paid out in that financial year. But I do not think anybody would doubt that there is a considerable lead time from negotiating with a company to its actually being set up. But $750,000 was committed. This year, $750,000, the same amount, has been allocated for the incentives program. It has been allocated in such a way that the Board cannot commit it for the next year but must spend it this year. This means there is a significant decrease in the amount available and a decrease in the significance of the incentives program. Indeed, it is disappointing to find out the attitude of the Government to the Canberra Development Board. The executive director resigned some months ago and has not been replaced. I feel rather disappointed that the Minister does not appreciate the need for an adequate amount to be made available, bearing in mind the competition from Victoria and New South Wales and bearing in mind the need for us to expand, diversify and attract industry and business to Canberra. If the money were not available I would prefer that some of the community employment program funds be diverted for this purpose. I think that would result in there being permanent jobs and real careers for young people, not just short term jobs that will be available under that scheme. As I said yesterday, I welcome the Minister's announcement that he had obtained $1.5m as a State supplement to add to our share of the community employment program funds. I urge him to consider how some of that money is to be spent. I believe it could be spent in the better interests of people obtaining long term employment and careers. As I said before, I asked the Minister to take the question of jobs seriously and to consider the area of tourism and incentives for getting jobs into Canberra. The White Industries project must get underway. He must respond to the wage pause committee's report which had about 70 recommendations on how to increase shared employment, and permanent part time employment in Canberra especially in the Public Service. He must give consideration to incentives and preferences to small business in Canberra. It is all very well to say that national projects should be tendered nationally. Of course one could not argue with that happening with the building of battleships or aeroplanes. But given that New South Wales and Victoria give preference to small local businesses I do not see why that could not occur in the Australian Capital Territory. I ask the Government to reconsider its position on this matter. One other wage pause committee recommendation was that there should be a payroll tax rebate for, say, two years to encourage people to employ. When it comes to jobs, let me again mention the Australian Federal Police computer centre. It was black banned on 6 August 1982 and finally cancelled on 26 August 1983. Quite apart from the issue of the upgrading of the efficiency of the police force, jobs in that project were just thrown away and apparently nobody was prepared to do anything about it. The financial future of Canberrans is that they will be paying more and getting less, as I said earlier. They will be paying out all the national increases which have been aired. They will be paying the local increases to which I have referred. They lose their mortgage rebates, as do other Australians. They lose the right to claim a rebate on medical benefit fund contributions. They will be paying the Medicare levy. They certainly are threatened by the superannuation proposals because there are more people in superannuation schemes in the Australian Capital Territory than in any other electorate, and they are certainly worried about the implications of the assets test. Costs will go up in Canberra, and by this time next year, or considerably before then, Canberrans will have a great deal less disposable income than they have had previously. It was indeed very misleading of our Minister to suggest that Canberra does well in the Budget. Senator CHILDS(New South Wales)(10.41) —We are discussing the Budget Statement and Papers for 1983-84, the first Hawke Labor Budget. We have heard Senator Reid go through a nit-picking exercise in which she has glossed over a number of significant issues for the people of Canberra. For example, she dismissed lightly the fact that this Government will build 500 houses and organise 2,000 blocks of land in Canberra, with the consequent improvement in employment that that will create. She conveniently forgot that only yesterday we lifted the wages freeze, which has particularly affected people in Canberra because of the high number of public servants who were the victims of the Fraser Government. With its lack of real policies, it continually attacked public servants. Then Senator Reid presumed to endorse the suggestion that the Hawke Government's Budget is some sort of band-aid. The reality is that the Labor Government came into power when the economy in Australia had a gaping wound of a deficit that caused the Australian people to bleed economically and put this country in a very serious position. The Australian community knows how hollow these protestations from Senator Reid are. The seven years of Liberal Government was a disaster. When the Australian Labor Party came into office the economy was undergoing its worst recession in 50 years. Conveniently, Senator Reid did not refer to what the experience of the Fraser Government has done to the people of Canberra and the rest of Australia, with three-quarters of a million Australians out of work. When the Fraser Government was dismissed from office by the Australian people we had an inflation rate running at 11 1/2 per cent. The Fraser Government gave us economic growth in reverse. There was an actual decline of 2 per cent in 1982-83 . This is the Fraser-Howard inheritance that the Australian people have found the Labor Government struggling with. I should like to analyse some of the problems that we face and some of the things that have been said by leading members of the Opposition Liberal Party. For example, Senator Chaney asserts that this Budget 'fails utterly to make any real commitment to full employment'. Mr Peacock, the Leader of the Opposition, considers that our Government has no understanding of the real needs of the community. How impertinent of these former Ministers in the Fraser Government! How committed to full employment was the former Fraser Government? How understanding was it of the real needs of the Australian community? I refer to the indictment of the former Liberal Government made this weekend at the council of the national organisation of the Liberal Party. In the report of the Liberal Party Committee of Review, known as the Valder report, it was stated of the Fraser Government: . . . our performance in Government simply did not match our rhetoric. We did not practise what we preached. Too often we were seen to be inconsistent, too pragmatic and, finally, too expedient. Bit by bit our credibility was eroded. The Fraser Government left a legacy of three-quarters of a million people unemployed. In its last 12 months of Government it allowed unemployment to increase by 270,000 people. The Australian people have condemned the Fraser Government. The way that the Australian Press has reacted in commenting on the confessions of the Liberal Party and the former Government is interesting. The editorial in the Australian on 3 October 1983 noted: . . . during the Fraser years it became very difficult to define what the Party believed in. It was not so much straying from the platform, but the seeming non- existence of any platform at all. On the other key issue to which I have referred-a wages policy-Michelle Grattan from the Melbourne Age, in commenting about the weekend council of the Liberal Party observed: The coalition will have to continue to operate without a wages policy. Indeed, this is how it is in many other areas. So the Australian Press endorses the confessions of the Liberal Party. I mention these matters only because the Liberal Party has not learnt. This is evidenced by the audacity of the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Peacock, at the weekend conference in saying: It is the Liberal approach which will ensure that the weak are safe and the strong are just. At the beginning of this year, according to the Australian Council of Social Service, three million Australians were living below the poverty line and tax avoidance, which I will refer to later, became a growth industry under the Fraser Government. How dare the Liberal Party say that the strong will be just when we know that the Fraser Government allowed tax avoiders to pay whatever they wanted, and avoidance was such a shocking development under the Fraser Government. With more people joining the dole queues and more people not having enough money to eke out a minimum subsistence the Fraser Government callously and cold-heartedly cut spending in real terms on social security by $2 1/2 billion. Those lucky enough to have jobs were not much better off. The Fraser Government redistributed income in such a manner that the burden of taxation borne by the lower and middle income wage and salary earners, that is pay as you earn taxpayers, climbed from 41.7 per cent of total tax collections in 1975-76 to 45 per cent in 1981-82. Mr Valder in his report argued for tax relief. But the Australian people know that the experience for the vast majority of Australian wage and salary earners was that they paid more while others paid less. While increasing tax for wage and salary earners, the Fraser Government consistently and savagely cut the social wage. The social wage which I refer to is the provision of health, housing, recreation, transport, communication, education and social security. It is true that now it is defeated, the Liberal Party is talking about a needs basis for these issues. But the truth is that in practice it whittled away the social wage that is a component of everybody's standard of living. It is significant that the Australian Financial Review, in an editorial on 3 October, said of the Valder report: It shows that the Liberals are aware of how directionless they have seemed for quite some time and that they are aware of how vapid Liberal 'philosophy' has become. So, combining the increased tax grab and the reductions in the benefits of the social wage, a total wage of $47 billion was ripped off Australian wage and salary earners in the seven Fraser Budgets. The present Treasurer, Mr Keating, made this Labor Government's position very clear on Budget night, 23 August, when he stated: This Government sought and received a very clear mandate from the Australian people to put the country back on the path to economic prosperity and to deal with inflation and unemployment simultaneously-with a spirit of consensus and fairness. As well as providing a framework for economic recovery, the Budget is about fairness and equity. This Budget, of a Labor Government, begins to provide assistance in a responsible way to those people who have suffered most from the recession, to those people who have been disadvantaged by the economic mismanagement and discriminatory policies of the previous Government. I should like to comment on some of the initiatives of the 1983-84 Labor Budget . Help for the unemployed is a high priority. The Budget contains significant changes to unemployment benefits. Benefits to single persons aged 18 years and over will increase from $68.65 to $73.60 a week. The single adult unemployment benefit will, with pensions, be indexed twice yearly in line with the consumer price index, and a $2 supplement will be provided in November 1983 and May 1984. The Fraser Government removed the indexation provisions for the single unemployed in 1978. In seven years of the Fraser Government, the unemployment benefit for those under 18 years of age was increased only once. This Budget has increased the unemployment and sickness benefit by $5 to $45 a week. There must be a recognition that many young people must live away from home, for family reasons or to seek work, and that they need a liveable pension. I am not suggesting that the pension is yet completely adequate, but it is certainly correcting the abuse of young people that occurred during the Fraser period. In addition, in relation to unemployment, education initiatives have been introduced and will be directed towards increasing the participation rate of young people in post-compulsory education. Direct spending on education will rise by 11 per cent to $4,211,000 in 1983-84. An indication of the Labor Government's effort to re-order priorities and to innovate services that will benefit those in most need is the spouse carer's pension, which will be introduced from December 1983. This pension will be paid to men caring for an aged or invalid pensioner spouse. This is a new and innovative pension that recognises the growing number of elderly and handicapped people in our community who are in need of the support of a single carer. It is a pension that encourages care within the family setting. It will redress the inequity between husband and wife care givers and will thus enable several thousand men each year to cope better in caring for their spouses. Through the introduction of Medicare, the Government is ensuring that a high quality of health care will be provided for all people and that we have a satisfactory health scheme. I do not think that anyone needs to be reminded that the Fraser Government killed Medibank, the most equitable health scheme we ever had. The latest Australian Bureau of Statistics survey shows that 1,953,000 Australians are without any health cover, through either private insurance or the Commonwealth cover provided to pensioners, the unemployed and low income earners-a tremendous indictment of the Fraser Government's health care provision . One of the innovations in this Budget of which I am very proud is that under the new Medicare arrangements community health provision has been restored to the 1975 real level of the Whitlam Government. The Fraser Government cut back community health provision by $20m in real terms. An example of the present Government's commitment to community health services and an important element of health care are the recent announcement by the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) of a grant of $100,000 each year for three years to the Lidcombe Workers Health Centre in the western suburbs of Sydney, in my own State. The Centre is the only one of its kind in New South Wales and it is involved in the treatment of and the provision of information on occupational health and safety for workers and unions in my State. This funding is further evidence of this Government's commitment to the accord between the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Labor Party, which states that there should be improvement in the quality of the working environment in Australia. It is also consistent with the major initiative proposed by the Hawke Labor Government of the setting up of a national occupational health and safety commission. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, has outlined the broad thrust of this program. Before this financial year is out, I hope that the occupational health and safety commission will be in operation. If one considers for a moment the fact that the average person spends probably at least a third of his/her life in his/her working environment, and if one considers the inadequacy over many years in the provisions relating to health, safety and the standards which should be maintained in a modern community, one realises that this particular initiative, and the indication that the Lidcombe Workers Health Centre has of the Government's commitment to gaining knowledge in this area, are very commendable and are in sharp contrast to the inequity that was the catchcall of the former Fraser Government. Not only was the tax system turned into an instrument for transferring money from wages to profits and from lower to higher income earners, but the social security system was also abused to assist those people least in need of it. Even Senator Chaney was reported in the Melbourne Age of 27 August this year as saying: I think we cannot escape the fact that there are some genuinely needy pensioners in the country who do not receive enough help, which some other people, by the advantageous arrangement of their assets, are able to draw on a system to a greater extent than their real degree of need would seem to justify. Senator Chaney said that when he was a Minister, but nothing happened under the Fraser Government to prevent the millionaire-type person going on to the pension under that Government. It is one reason why another newspaper, the Australian, in commenting on the Valder report, said in its editorial that the Liberal Party was flawed: . . . by the slowness of the Federal Parliamentary Party in trying to make up its mind on what it stands for. One of the problems of the Liberal Party is that when in government it just did not do the things which were so patently obvious, and which were acknowledged by Senator Chaney; of course, nothing happened. In an effort to stop wealthy people exploiting or even cheating our pension system, the present Government will introduce an assets test. In 1976 the Fraser Government stopped counting large asset holdings in assessing pensions. This resulted in an explosion of shady investment schemes which often contrived ways of converting income to capital gains. The assets test is an effort to restore equity. It is one way of ensuring that those in need receive their share of government assistance and that those less in need make their fair contribution. The assets test does not mean that aged persons alone are being asked to make a contribution. The Hawke Government takes equity and redistribution seriously. We intend to take these principles across the board to include employers, wage earners and their unions. The Government is trying to arrange for all of those people to be involved in contributing to redistribution and equity. Elderly Australians can be assured that when the proposals are brought down in their final form, after consultation with pensioner organisations and all of the people concerned, through the consultations organised by the Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, we will have a system which will ensure that all honest wage and salary earners who become pensioners can be certain of an adequate pension and that all of those people who have been free loading on the Australian people will pay their fair share towards retirement. Already these are some examples. The Government is attempting to reorder priorities in such a way that fairness and equity will prevail in our community. I refer to the Government's commitment to the Australian Council of Trade Unions -Australian Labor Party economic accord which covers, amongst other things, a fairer taxation system and social wage involving increased provision by the Government in the areas of health, education, housing and social services. The accord with the trade union movement further provides the opportunity for a united approach to the current economic crisis which can result in improving the welfare and well being of most Australians. Hand in hand with these redistributive moves, this Government has signalled major changes in taxation. It is attempting to stamp out tax avoidance and tax evasion, the rorts and distortions of the Income Tax Assessment Act that characterised the Fraser Government's taxation policy. It has already been pointed out that, under the Fraser Government, the taxation system became a major instrument for redistributing income. Wealthy people have benefited. Professor Mathews, I think, summed it up when he pointed out that from 1965 to 1966 the non-pay-as-you-earn taxpayers paid one-third of total personal income tax. This figure had dropped by a staggering 13 per cent in 1982-83 to only 18 per cent. That is the tremendous burden that wage and salary earners had under the Fraser Government. Tax avoidance and tax evasion exploded during the term of the Fraser Government . It is worth while recalling that in the 1980 election campaign Malcolm Fraser thundered 'we are clamping down on tax avoidance'. We know how hollow that proclamation was. According to the Australian Financial Review, by the end of the financial year 1981-82, the amount of tax uncollected from tax avoidance schemes had soared by 50 per cent to $150m. The number of persons participating in tax avoidance schemes increased by more than 25 per cent to over 28,000 people. They were the people the Fraser Government favoured during its seven years of office and seven Budgets in this country. The Fraser Government showed that it did not have the necessary will to take action to destroy tax avoidance once and for all. As the McCabe-Lafranchi report stated, legislation introduced in 1978 to stop the trafficking in current year profits companies 'had no effect in curbing the sale-on of companies as a means of tax avoidance'. This Labor Government has already moved in a number of important areas of tax avoidance. Two major areas remain. The Treasurer, Mr Keating, has announced the Government's intention to strengthen, through amendment, section 26 (a) of the Income Tax Assessment Act so that it will operate effectively to tax speculative profits. I hope that this move will be successful but I must say that I agree with Senator Button, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, when he says that in his view there should be a capital gains tax in Australia. He has said that he will continue to argue for it. One of the distortions that we have in Australia is that the smart people have converted the smart money into capital gains and the remainder in the Australian community, the wage and salary earners, have subsidised the smart people, those 26,000-odd who comprise the elite group that the Fraser Government favoured. The Labor Government is introducing a redrafted form of the bottom of the harbour tax Bill in order to recoup tax avoided as a result of the notorious anti-social schemes to which I have referred. The efforts to block the bottom of the harbour tax Bill by members of the Opposition indicate that they have no concern about equity. We have always expected that the Liberal Party will continue to be a bit soft on tax dodgers, as I have already said. As far as the Australian Democrats are concerned, in the past they have supported measures for which we, the elected Labor Government, have a clear mandate. We look forward to seeing how the Democrats will shape up when they have the responsibility of letting the Labor Government move in this decisive way to clean up, not only in practice but also in a symbolic way, the tax avoidance industry which is the legacy of the Fraser Government to the Australian people. For all these reasons I believe that the Fraser Government and its Ministers have been discredited. They still hang on in positions of influence within the Opposition, but the Valder Committee report commissioned by the Liberal Party has condemned the very leaders of the Liberal Party for the inefficiencies of the Fraser Government. The Hawke Government, despite the inheritance from the Fraser, Howard, Peacock, Carrick and Durack Liberal Government, if I can put it that way, has been left with great problems. Our Government is dealing with those problems and we are now in a position to turn the economy of Australia around. I am certain that the endorsement which the Australian people have given to the Labor Party will be reaffirmed time and again. The Liberal Party is dominated by its Western Australian branch and its dry and dismal policies. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Peacock, said that he should occupy the middle ground in Australia. He took that literally. When he was pummelled by the Western Australian Liberal Party he ended up in the middle of Australia, somewhere between the Nullarbor Plain and Ayers Rock, dry and with nowhere to go . He is the creature of the conservative wing of the Liberal Party. That is the reason why the Hawke Government will introduce many more Budgets into this chamber. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(11.09) —On quiet analysis, this Budget will be shown to be a giant confidence trick, a hoax, a stream of broken promises. Its rhetoric does not match with the fine print of the supporting papers. Senator Gietzelt —Stop talking about Fraser's Budgets. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Indeed, this Hawke Budget says one thing but the attached papers reveal the reverse. I will now proceed, by quiet analysis, to indicate why I say that. Let us look first at the stream of broken promises and ask ourselves where the Budget stands. Senator Gietzelt —What about Fraser's broken promises? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —The Hawke Government said that it would give an income tax cut to six million workers. It did nothing for six million workers, Senator Gietzelt. It did nothing. It said it would introduce a new six-step tax scale and it did nothing. Senator Gietzelt —You never talk about Federalism any more. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Every time Senator Gietzelt interjects I will remind him that it did nothing. It said that it would increase the tax threshold to $5, 000. Since there is no interjection from Senator Gietzelt I remind him that it did nothing. It said that it would increase the pensioner tax threshold to $5, 893. It did nothing. It said it would increase the spouse and sole parent rebate . Senator Gietzelt —What about your Government? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Senator Gietzelt now interjects. The Hawke Government did nothing. It said that there would be no capital gains tax yet it is to alter substantially section 26 (a) of the Income Tax Assessment Act to provide such a tax. Senator Gietzelt's own leader says that he favours and will work for a comprehensive capital gains tax. For three years the Australian Labor Party said with a bleeding heart that it would lower the price of petrol. The Treasurer, Mr Keating, went on platforms all over Australia saying that there would be cheaper petrol but the Government put up the price of fuel in Australia. It said that there would be no devaluation. It devalued promptly. It promised that there would be no change to superannuation arrangements in Australia and it broke that promise substantially. It said it would raise the age pension to 25 per cent of the average wage over three years. It has done nothing. It said that it would give pension increases three months earlier. It did nothing. The Government and its leaders said that they would bring down unemployment by 2 per cent in their first three years of office. Not only is the Government not doing that but also is its Budget predicting an increase in unemployment this year and an increase over three years. It said that it would lower inflation. It is, in fact, in its small print, budgeting for increased inflation. It said that it would index income tax. Instead, it is increasing indirect taxes against people. That is not a bad record of broken promises. The Budget is contrived on the greatest hoax that one could inflict upon the Australian people. It is contrived on the basis of a consumer price index increase of 7.5 per cent. That figure is derived by removing an amount of 2.6 per cent from the CPI because health insurance payments will be taken by direct tax and not by indirect tax in the future. Let me make this perfectly clear to the Australian people. Prices will not fall in any way. Costs will not fall. In fact, they will rise. Because the Government will be taking the money for health insurance out of people's taxes, out of their pay packets, and the people will not be paying private funds out of their side pockets, the Government will discount the CPI by 2.6 per cent and, therefore, people will receive less money. Because costs will not fall-in fact they will rise-the single pensioner will lose $2.30 a week. The married pensioner couple will lose $3.90. These are the people whom Labor speakers have been saying are protected by Labor. There can be a no more cynical raid upon the Australian public than a pretence that inflation has fallen by the simple device of altering the figures even though prices will have risen. Prices must rise. Demonstrably all the State governments are putting up their indirect taxes in a very large way and the independent economists have predicted that inflation will be running at between 11 and 12 per cent in Australia in the current year. That is demonstrable. Nevertheless, by a snide method, there is the pretence that there will be a 7.5 per cent inflation rate and pensions and wages will be geared to that. Can there be a bigger fraud than that? These are the people who are claiming that they are representing the poor people and the average people of Australia. This is a Budget that is supposed to move towards recovery-a Budget which, beyond its rhetoric and its small print, shows that company tax revenue this year will be 13.1 per cent lower than last year. How can we have recovery if the Budget is predicting that there will be less profit and less ability for companies to produce revenue? This is a Budget whose supporting papers say-I use the phrases from them-that there will be a marked fall in private business investment this year. There will be a marked fall in company profits and company tax. Yet this is recovery! Let us pause on that and see what the Budget says. As we know, the Government said in its election policies and at its National Economic Summit Conference that there is only one issue and that is jobs. A certain Premier, now in some strife, the Federal President of the Labor Party, Mr Wran, has said there is only one issue-jobs, jobs, jobs. But let me show the deception in that statement as in other matters. Whilst members of the Labor Party were talking about jobs, jobs, jobs, at the National Summit they were conniving with the Australian Council of Trade Unions to adopt an option at the Summit which was rejected by all other interests, by business and commerce. I pause to say that there was no consensus at the Summit. The option that the Labor Party and the ACTU adopted was in the face of the advice they received from commerce and industry. Option A , according to the document of the National Economic Summit Conference of April 1983, will have an effect upon the percentage of unemployment in the first year of 8.9 per cent, in the next year of 10 per cent, and in the next of 10.1 per cent. The Government was saying to the people of Australia that by the end of its third year in office there would be a substantial rise in unemployment. The Budget itself says that. It shows that this year more people will be seeking employment than before, that is, the growth in jobs will not equal the number of extra people coming on the market. The Government is budgeting for higher unemployment at the end of this year. What kind of a Budget is it that honourable senators are now lauding which, on its own papers, not by any rhetoric of the Opposition, says that there will be a decline in company investment, a decline in company tax and, therefore, a decline in company profits? There will be an increase in unemployment and inflation. Where now are the feathers to fly with? Let us bear in mind that that is the whole basis on which the Government stands . The Budget itself is one of three distinct steps-the Summit, the mini-Budget and the Budget. Taken together they make the pattern of the Budget for this year . It is a deception to look at the August document alone and not look at the three together. The Summit document had one characteristic-it rejected the consensus view of commerce and industry and accepted a device with the ACTU which would create more inflation and unemployment. The only kind of economic policy that could run from then onwards was one that the Fraser Government had brought in and which remained; that was the wages pause. What a fascinating piece of cynicism it is that the Labor Party under Mr Hawke, which in the months before March of this year together with the ACTU was setting out to destroy the wages pause, now depends upon it as the only platform that it has in its so called wages accord. What a strange situation that is. When the Treasurer brought in his mini-Budget in May he said there would be an improvement in the Australian economy, and he cited a number of reasons why that would be. He said: As I noted in my address to the Summit Conference, we expect some improvement in economic activity in the course of 1983-84 with the main impetus coming from: I pause to emphasise the words 'the main impetus coming from', and as I read his words one by one honourable senators will see that the only things he drew upon were the policies of the Fraser Government already in place, the first platform being: The fiscal stimulus implicit in the Commonwealth Budget for 1982-83 and in prospect for 1983-84; I interpolate that that was a Fraser Government Budget. He then referred to an improvement in the international economy-scarcely a Hawke initiative. He went on : a marked slowing in stock decumulation so that a greater proportion of increased demand will be met from additional production; That is scarcely a Hawke initiative. He continued: the improved prospects for farm production and exports; I suppose that, since the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, claims credit for the America's Cup, the Victorian Football League, the rugby league, and now the Davis Cup, he will claim that he broke the drought. The only drought he broke was the drought of rhetoric. Let me say that, of all those things, none was as a result of actions by the Hawke Government. The Treasurer's statement continued: the pick-up in dwelling construction already under way; Now they are claiming that is a result of one of their magic measures. The Treasurer went on: and finally, but of fundamental importance, the improved prospects for on going moderation of income claims as the prices and incomes accord is implemented. The only element that had some function in that regard was the wages pause of the Fraser Government. So at that stage the Hawke Government and its Treasurer had claimed basically that all those elements that were working for the good of the country were by way of nature, the overseas scene improving, or Fraser Government policies. I come fundamentally to the mini-Budget, because in all this debate people are forgetting what happened. I seek leave to table a document, which the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) has seen, based entirely on the mini- Budget figures and tables setting out the nature of the mini-Budget. Leave granted. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I remind the people of Australia of the nature of the mini-Budget and its impact. I deal with its adverse impact. As to taxpayers in general, we have had the abolition of the income tax rebate for health insurance ; the reduction of the current $1,040 threshold for minors to $416-a miserable amount indeed; the increase in the block concessional rebate level from $1,590 to $2,000; and another miserable one, the abolition of the $1,000 dividend rebate from which employees of companies might have gained some benefit. Are they good concessions? The taxpayers have been raided. For retired people, the income test has been re-instituted for age and service pensions for those 70 years of age and older. Did the Government say it would do that? No. Indeed, it made it quite clear that it would not. Then, of course, we have had the raid upon superannuation by taxing in a severe way lump sum payments, something the Government undertook to the people that it would not do. As to home buyers, when one listened to debates on this matter one was sure that members of the Government were creatures of policies to stimulate home buying. They have terminated the home deposit assistance scheme from 1 October, they have terminated the housing interest income tax rebate scheme from 1 July, and they have terminated the housing interest rebate from 1 October. They are silent on all these things now, and they want to make it apparent that they have invented a home savings scheme of some kind. They remain silent in regard to public works. Proposed expenditure on the Brisbane Airport has been reduced and they have suspended and deferred elements of the aerodrome local ownership plan. Remember the miserable cutting of the money for the Alice Springs-Darwin railway? There has been a huge rejection of all the basic supplementary elements of the bicentennial water resources program. The Government has rejected the allocation of some $350m to that program, even though it would have involved first class job creation schemes, even though those water projects would have helped create jobs for the future, even though the experts of the departments both State and Federal had said that these projects had priority, and even though the committee on the prospects for water for the future, to the year 2000, had vetted them. Still the Government rejected this program. What about the termination of the special youth employment training program? Remember also that the Government increased the interest rate on capital for Telecom Australia and Australia Post. Do honourable senators remember the raid on rural dwellers, with the reduction of the freight equalisation for petroleum products, the alteration of the primary producing averaging scheme and the income equalisation deposit scheme interest rates, the extension of the depreciation of farm plant and equipment from three years to five years and, as to the Australian Wheat Board, the removal of the subsidy in regard to commercial borrowings? All these things were a part of a Budget that was supposed to be good for the people. As to aviation fuel, the Government has increased the excise by 2c a litre on avgas and avtur. As to industry, it has reduced to no more than 5c the difference in multibrand pharmaceuticals. It has terminated the special depreciation allowance on petrol storage, along with the special tax concessions for the conversion of oil-fired and liquefied petroleum gas plant. It has removed exemptions on interest in regard to withholding tax, a matter which to some extent comes under the umbrella of the Australian Industry Development Corporation. Do honourable senators recall in regard to hospitals the reduction in the Commonwealth contribution to the Hospital Benefits Reinsurance Trust Fund? Do they recall in regard to migrants the income test on the living allowance for adult migrants and education? Do we recall, as to the Public Service, the reduction of activities in overseas posts and, as to repatriation, paying certain pensions fortnightly in advance? That is just a small string of broken promises and, indeed, of new and biting initiatives that hurt the ordinary person and of which no indication at all was given. As will be seen from the Hansard, when we take the gains and losses, for this year alone there has been a raid of $1,397m on the taxpayers of Australia. As if that were not enough, as if that were not hitting hard enough, along came the Budget and in it a series of other miserable attacks upon the ordinary provident family. The whole thrust of what this Government is doing is to attack the ordinary family, the struggling family on a middle income which is seeking to save and seeking to educate its children. Wherever one goes one sees the hand of the socialists cutting away. Now people will be robbed because those in work will have to pay a 1 per cent tax by way of levy for Medicare. Of course there is no rebate for that at all and the conditions of that scheme do not give people access to their own doctors or to private accommodation in hospitals. Something else that was never mentioned is the assets test to be applied to pensioners. What a mess, what an utter muddle it is. How can it be that the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) can come in here, as he did again yesterday, and explain to us that if I as a pensioner were to give one of my family several years before I died say $30,000 or $40,000 of precious savings, that would be subject to the deprivation test. However, I could get the pension if I bought jewellery and antiques which I could will to my children. What kind of muddled mind is it that tries all these sorts of nonsenses? What kind of muddled mind is it that says it is against double dipping but is thoroughly willing to double dip on both the lump sum contributions and the assets test? If ever there were double dipping by governments, there it is. So what do we see? We see a snide attempt to say to people: 'We are not going to encourage you to be provident; we are against that kind of situation. If you seek to be provident and to use your savings upon your retirement to pay off your home, to buy a car or to help one of your children to start in business, or , indeed, you seek to hold and to will those savings to your children, you will not be eligible for a pension'. The hand of socialism will come out. The Government will say: 'We will take our greedy share of it because we are opposed to providence, we are opposed to these kinds of situations'.The Government did not say one word before it was elected about what it proposed to do. Look at the miserable situation we are in. The Government made a pretence to improve student assistance allowances. However, these allowances have been increased at a percentage below the inflation rate so students are losing in real terms. What kind of humbug is it that protested for three years that there ought to be an indexing of personal income tax to stop people's incomes being eroded by inflation and does nothing about that situation upon gaining government? In fact , the Government does the reverse. On gaining office it indexed indirect taxes. So the Government is taking more and more without having to say so in a Budget. So we have seen a raid upon indirect taxes and excise. We have seen a raid upon beer, cigarettes and wine. We have seen miserable kinds of things happen. We have seen the abolition of the tax concession on home insulation. Can there be anything more mean-minded than the Government's move against those young people of Australia who give their services voluntarily in the Army, Navy and Air Force reserves? These people were given one simple incentive by governments-that is, that the amount of money they earned was tax exempt. What is more mean than for the hand of socialism to reach in and say: 'No, we are not going to do it for you any more. We are not going to let you have it'. These things then become the Budget, the Budget that has been represented as a Budget that is fair and that is moving towards recovery. Let us take stock of the Budget. It is an extraordinary situation that can project to the people of Australia in a public relations exercise a product which is the very reverse. It is an extraordinary situation that can project a Budget Speech as saying one thing when the documents supporting it say the other. Let me take the examples one by one. The Government is supposed to be a Government pledged to the re- employment of people. Its whole basis of coming to Government was that it could do something that the Fraser Government could not do, that it would in fact reduce unemployment and create more jobs. The Government had not had the flush of victory from its face a month when at the National Economic Summit Conference it confessed, although in small print, that in fact what it was planning was more unemployment, and more unemployment steadily, for the next three years. What an extraordinary situation that is! The Government had not been in office a few months before it raided the people in a mini-Budget, which has been incorporated in Hansard for all to read, and took from provident people the real margin of providence that they had-namely, their ability to save and their ability to acquire. The Government had not been in office a bare five months before it brought down a Budget which went further than that and which moved into attacks on providence not only in regard to lump sum superannuation but also, of course, on assets tests. Each day people get up in this place and talk about the rich double dipping. Let me simply say that I see no rich in the municipal employees or Public Service unions objecting to the lump sum superannuation proposals. In fact, the great majority of the 1.8 million people who are being impacted by this new grab are ordinary small income earners who live on a margin. What about the waterside workers? Are they the rich? Are they the people whom the Government wants to hit too? Everybody ought to know that waterside workers retire early at the age of 60 because of redundancy problems in the industry. Special provisions are made for them in terms of lump sum superannuation to bridge the gap between the time they retire and the age at which they would qualify for a pension. Do we take notice of them or the municipal employees and the public servants? What about members of the ironworkers union? Where are the voices in this place for the ordinary people of Australia, for the ordinary families of Australia and for the pensioners who are going to be robbed by the nastiest and ugliest trick of arithmetic that one could have? I repeat: How can people be anything but humbugs and hypocrites if they say: ' It is true that prices will not fall-indeed, prices are likely to rise specifically by Federal Government and State government actions-but by juggling the arithmetic of the consumer price index we are going to contrive that they appear to have fallen by 2.6 per cent. Therefore, we are going to take from the single pensioner $2.30 a week and from a married pensioner couple $3.90 a week'. Of course, the Government will take money from all wage earners. Yet it says that it is out to maintain real wages. I said at the beginning of my speech that, on a quiet analysis of the Summit and, indeed, of the mini-Budget and the present Budget, it would be shown that what has happened to the people of Australia is a gross confidence trick, a hoax , a destruction of promises, a tissue of promises which have all been broken. Let the Hawke Government never again talk about broken promises of the past. This Government is now the professional expert on them. If ever Mr Hawke wants to be photographed against records-and he shows such a narcissistic tendency to latch on to other people's success because he cannot do it on his own-- Senator Robert Ray —It is turning now, is it not? Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —What I have said is perfectly true. He is latching on to others because like Narcissus he is so engrossed with his own reflection in the pool that he cannot hear the voices of the 600,000 or 700,000 unemployed Australians-the growing number of Australians who day by day are unemployed because this Budget not only does nothing to ease unemployment but also will create more unemployment. There can be nothing worse than a government which was elected on an issue that it would create employment and then set about on policies which it knew and in fact stated in small print would create more unemployment. I know nothing more deceptive, more humbug and hypocritical than that. I commend these remarks to the Australian people. Senator JONES(Queensland)(11.39) —Senator Sir John Carrick in his recitation said that he would have a quiet look at the Budget. The points that he tried to make in relation to broken promises seem to me to be very hollow indeed. He has been negative, hypocritical and hollow. I do not intend to go through word for word, clause by clause, what the honourable senator had to say about the Budget. But I do intend to say one or two things. Senator Chaney —It is a pity he has been accurate, though. Senator JONES —If the honourable senator will wait a moment he will see. During the last election Howard went throughout the country making claims that there was going to be a $6 billion deficit. It was only after the Hawke Government came to office-and there is a great deal of silence on the other side at the moment-that we discovered that the deficit would have been $9.6 billion. When Senator Sir John Carrick talks about broken promises it is fairly realistic for the people of Australia to consider the first and major lie that was told by the discredited former Treasurer to the people of Australia. Let us go a little further. Senator Sir John Carrick talked about the Government imposing a further burden of $13.3m-I think that was the figure he used-on the taxpayers of Australia through the changes we have made regarding taxation. Let us go back to what happened in this chamber after the Hawke Labor Government took over. Legislation was put before this chamber as well as the House of Representatives where, I might add, the Government has a majority of 25 seats. Because of the action of the previous Government the people of Australia judged very clearly that they were not going to have any more of that Government and elected a Hawke Labor government with that majority in the House of Representatives. The Government introduced the Dividend Recoupment Tax Bill in the House of Representatives. When the Bill came before the Senate members on the other side of the chamber, including Senator Sir John Carrick, voted against it. Therefore, the people of Australia were denied $500m in revenue that could have been gained from the cheats and the crooks-the people who had not paid tax in Australia. Senator Sir John Carrick and others on the other side of the chamber supported that denial. Hypocritically Senator Sir John Carrick went through the Budget in a negative way and tried to destroy the things that the Hawke Labor Government is doing in an effort to gain some of the revenue necessary to meet some of the requirements of the people of Australia. Five hundred million dollars was denied the Government of Australia by this Opposition. The Opposition talks about hypocrites. It caused a situation in which the Government had to bring down a Budget and had to introduce new measures to obtain further income to enable it to meet the needs of the people of Australia. Let me go back to the time of the election. Never let us forget that it was the people of Australia who threw out the Fraser Government and its broken promises. The people of Australia said: 'We do not want a Treasurer who said that we would have a $6 billion deficit and we finished up with a $9.6 billion deficit'. The Opposition did not react to the people of Australia. The Opposition voted against the Dividend Recoupment Tax Bill and, therefore, against the people of Australia. The Opposition allowed the tax avoiders and the tax evaders to get out of their responsibilities regarding taxation in Australia and forced the Hawke Labor Government to bring down a Budget which would put that $500m into the revenue. As I said before, I think that answers very clearly the points made by Senator Sir John Carrick regarding the Budget and his negative attitude to what is happening in Australia, particularly towards the unemployed. I believe this Budget has laid the foundation for a sustained economic revival in Australia. Despite the points raised by Senator Sir John Carrick and despite the problems which we have, when I go through the figures in a moment it will be seen that there has been an improvement in employment in Australia, and we have been in government for only seven months. The first signs of recovery are already apparent after only seven months in office. I refer to falling interest rates, a jump in motor car registrations, an upsurge in the building and construction industry and increased employment. Business and consumer confidence is thriving. That confidence has been fuelled in no small way by a magnificent victory at Newport, Rhode Island and in the Davis Cup, by the participation of the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, and the participation of the people of Australia-a feeling that Australia can do it, a feeling that we know that this Government will do it and the people of Australia will support it in allowing it to do it. A recent report of the Melbourne University Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research stated that there was a continuing upward trend in consumer confidence that was almost unprecedented so soon after a Federal election. Just seven months after the Federal election we find that there is an upsurge in consumer confidence. Members of this chamber do not have to take my word for it; it is quite obvious. A report that was published in the Australian Financial Review a few days ago under the heading 'Survey shows consumer optimism on increase' stated: The Hawke Government is defying the usual trend of post-election disillusionment , a regular Melbourne University survey showing continued increasing consumer optimism as the recession bottoms out. The article continued: The biggest improvement is in the increased proportion of the 1,088 interviewed consumers who consider that now is a good time to buy major household items, a good news results for home durables manufacturers that adds to the house building recovery. The report further emphasised that confidence is now starting to show in the consumer groups throughout Australia. It stated: The six-weekly surveys now have shown three successive increases for the first time since the third quarter of 1980, a trend which the Melbourne Institute and Morgan Research describe as ''an extremely positive sign.'' . . . . The Melbourne Institute and Morgan Research say that the overall improvement in consumer optimism since the March election is remarkable as the survey index markedly fell after each of the previous four federal elections, presumably as voters became disillusioned with the new government not fulfilling their high hopes. The editorial in the Australian dated 17 September 1983 entitled 'New mood of optimism in consumer spending' stated: There is nothing less certain than the future, or more fragile than predictions of it. Even so, for the economic recovery to continue, we need to have confidence about our future. The marked improvement in consumer sentiment, measured by a joint survey of the Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research and the Roy Morgan Research Centre, conducted last month after the Budget, is therefore a most welcome sign that the worst of the recession is behind us and, indeed, that the economy is growing again. Spending by consumers is by far the largest component of this growth. I believe those points show very clearly that the remarks passed by Senator Sir John Carrick are not indicative of what is happening in the community. There is an encouraging growth in the number of jobs being advertised in the newspapers. Reports by personnel agencies indicate that some employers are having difficulties in filling skilled positions. There is a consumer recovery and more jobs are starting to be advertised in newspapers throughout Australia. The Australian people are in a buying mood. A consumer led recovery would be the best possible trend for Australia because it would tend to stimulate employment immediately in the manufacturing and distribution sectors as well as directly in the retailing sector. By Christmas, this consumer confidence will translate into consumer spending and the reality of the economic recovery will become apparent, even to those who failed in the task over seven long, wasted years. If we look at what happened under the Fraser Government we will see that that sort of confidence and consumer spending was not taking place. I believe the Australian people took the correct action when they threw out the Fraser Government on 5 March. By the end of this financial year the Australian economy will reach a growth rate of between 5 per cent and 6 per cent. I believe we could look at a number of examples of an increase in the growth rate. Although that statement in some ways does not refer to the growth rate in consumer spending, it certainly refers to the confidence that is showing in the market place. A spokesman for David Jones Pty Ltd was reported in the Australian of Tuesday, 4 October-that is not so long ago-as having said that trading was very good in all cities and suburban stores. He was actually talking about trading on a holiday. At this stage I will not argue the case for or against the extension of trading hours. The survey conducted by the Morgan Research Centre and the Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research showed quite clearly that there is an upsurge in consumer spending throughout Australia and there certainly is growth in the economy. The Budget tactics and Budget policies of the Government are starting to work. Consumer spending is increasing. It is very good to see the Deputy President nodding in agreement. The Budget has placed considerable emphasis on the building and construction industries to get the economy moving in that area which normally leads in economic recovery. The Government expects to see strong growth in building as well as the area of building supplies. We expect to see large growth in the 26 allied trades that are tied to the building industry. We expect to see growth in land development, roads, kerb and channelling services, power and water. We expect to see increases for local authorities for the establishment of new homes and increases in their revenue from rates from the establishment of those homes. The Hawke Government has also begun the process of restructuring two of this country's most distorted financial systems-those of taxation and social security . We heard remarks being passed earlier in regard to social security and the proposals put forward by this Government, particularly in relation to the asset test. I do not believe there is any Australian who would not believe or would not know that we have an aging population, and that we have a diminishing working population that will pay more and more income tax. Because of the large number of people who will retire, and because of the aging of the population, that working population will carry more of the burden to provide the social security and other benefits that the community must pay to the aging population in Australia. It is reasonable to expect that there should be some type of asset test. It is reasonable to expect that we should give some relief to the people who are paying income tax and that we should not provide money for people who do not require that money. Money spent on social security for such people would be better spent providing finance for the people who need to be supported by the community and by the Government. I do not believe that any fair thinking Australian would deny that, given our aging population and the problems that will face us in the future. On a number of occasions in this chamber Senator Chaney has said that there should be some type of asset test. The only reason the previous Government did not bring one in was that it could not agree on the way in which the system should work. Let us look at the housing situation in Australia. Senator Sir John Carrick made some comment about our cutting out the home deposit assistance scheme. We cut out that scheme because it contained a requirement until 30 September when it was revoked that a certain amount of money-I think $2,000-had to be saved over a two-year period in order to qualify. The difference now is that we have introduced the first home ownership assistance scheme which for the first time allows money to be paid from the Federal Government to help people meet the requirements of the deposit in order to purchase a spec home or to enter into a contact to have one built. We are starting to see an upsurge in activity in the home building industry, particularly throughout the State of Queensland. That upsurge has now started in Brisbane and it is as a result of assistance given by the Federal Government under the first home ownership assistance scheme. Both the taxation and social security systems had been mutated into monsters that had indulged the wealthy at the expense of the most needy. Both systems have stalled after decades of amendments, bandages and abuses. We had band-aid attempts by the previous Government to do something about it, but with no real results. That Government did not have the guts to take on the problem of developing an asset test. Of course, this process is now changing. We now have Ministers and a Government who will accept their responsibility not only to the taxpayer but also to parts of the community, the aged and the invalid, who need some support from the Federal Government. With the Government doing something about social security benefits, I really believe that we have a government with a social conscience. We will have a more reasonable redistribution of the benefits that should go to every Australian. This Budget is the first genuine attack on unemployment in this country. After seven stagnant years of coalition government, things are starting to improve. Senator Sir John Carrick said that we promised we would lower unemployment. We are keeping our promise. I will read out the figures for the first six months under our Government. Senator Walters is shaking her head but she can get the figures and read them. She will find that this is the case. The national unemployment figures-actual figures, not seasonally adjusted figures-at the end of August showed unemployment at 684,100 people or 9.9 per cent of the work force. At the end of February that figure was 747,300 or 10.7 per cent. This shows a drop of 0.8 per cent in unemployment since the Hawke Government took office. We should look at what is happening with unemployment in Queensland. The figures there show very clearly that the Premier of Queensland and the people in charge of the Government in Queensland are certainly not addressing themselves to the problems that exist, either on a national or State basis. Queensland currently has 10.1 per cent of its work force unemployed. The number of unemployed youth in Queensland between the ages of 15 and 19 is 19,800 or 20 per cent. That is an increase of 7,000 in one year. There is 13.6 per cent unemployment amongst single females. Queensland has the highest adult male unemployment rate in Australia with 57,000 or 10.2 per cent. (Quorum formed) The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Jones, before I call you again I draw your attention to the fact that you should not assume, as you did in the course of your speech, that the nodding of the Presiding Officer's head necessarily indicates agreement with what has been said. There may be other explanations. In any case, whoever is in the chair is completely impartial and does not express agreement or disagreement with anything said by any honourable senator, as provided under Standing Orders. Senator JONES —Thank you, Mr Deputy President. I accept the reprimand from the Chair in relation to your nodding. Before the interruption, I was discussing unemployment in Queensland in the national context. The rate of growth of unemployment in Australia is currently 48 per cent but the rate of growth in Queensland was 74 per cent up to July 1983. Twelve months ago Queensland's unemployed totalled 67,000, or 6.5 per cent. The Queensland Premier claims that his Government created 49,000 jobs in 1982-83. But these figures are grossly and deliberately misleading; they were figures for the period 1980-81. Queensland experienced no employment creation in 1982-83. In fact, for every month over the past 12 months fewer jobs have been available compared with the corresponding month of the previous year. The Queensland Government claims that Queensland's unemployment rate is due to interstate and overseas migration to that State totalling 42,127 people during the calendar year 1982. But only one-quarter to one-third of those people were seeking to enter the work force. Only about 14, 000 of these people went to Queensland to work. The Queensland Government is still stalling on finalising details of the Commonwealth's community employment program although it has formally agreed to it. Its delay is probably linked to the fact that it has syphoned off job creation money into the short term money market to balance the Budget which otherwise would have shown a deficit of about $53m. I think it is worth noting also that the Government has made $15.9m available to the Queensland Government for job creation programs for the six months ended 30 June 1983 from money saved during the wages pause. I think that is worth mentioning. A moment ago Senator Sir John Carrick was very critical of the wage pause by the Australian Government. (Quorum formed) We sat on this side of the chamber while there were two Liberal senators on the other side and we listened to Senator Sir John Carrick go on with his hypocritical, negative debate in relation to this Budget. I find now that, when we start to produce figures to refute some of the comments made by him, the Leader of the Opposition continues to call for quorums. I have noticed that, on a number of occasions, he has not been very interested in whether there has been a quorum in this House. I am surprised to see him in here. I was saying that the unemployment problem in Queensland is worse than it is in the rest of Australia. It is one of the worst States in Australia. Yet, the Premier is going to the electorate on 22 October. I only hope, even with the interference by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, that people who are listening know of the problems that exist in relation to unemployment in Queensland. Let me go a little further. Let me say something about what the Government is doing on a positive basis. Funding in the Budget for unemployment initiatives has, at least, been raised to realistic levels. We have to remember that they are being rasied to these levels even though Senator Chaney and the Opposition voted against the tax recoupment Bills and denied to the Government $500m which should have been revenue to come to the Government prior to the Budget. It denied the Government that revenue. This Government is still being positive in increasing the expenditure in relation to employment initiatives in this country . Trade training will be allocated $17.8m, up 23.5 per cent on the amount allocated by Senator Chaney's Government last year. Skills training has been allocated $23.5m, up 58.7 per cent on the amount allocated by Senator Chaney's Government last year. The amount allocated to youth training is up 20 per cent to $93.5m. Special training which covers special employment counselling and training through the Commonwealth Employment Service for job seekers disadvantaged because of mental or physical disability, different cultural or language background or through being unemployed for lengthy periods has been allocated $33.2m which is up 4.7 per cent. Employment services have been allocated $119.6m which is an increase of 19.4 per cent. Assistance to long term unemployed, up from a miserable $400,000 to $32.1m is an increase of 8,000 per cent. Yet this Opposition continually opposes what this Government is doing for the unemployed and employment in this country. More than $300m has been allocated for the community employment program which has already been launched. Let us look at the attitude of this Government. We should go back to the speech made by Senator Sir John Carrick in which he continually criticised the Australian Labor Party and the Hawke Government. I remind this chamber and the people in the gallery of what this Government did when in Government and what it is now doing in Opposition. When it was in Government Mr Howard, the discredited Treasurer, went around this country saying that there would be a deficit of $6 billion when, in fact, we found the deficit would be $9.6 billion. That was the No. 1 lie perpetrated by the Government that was in power at that time. Secondly , the Opposition voted against tax recoupment Bills which were introduced into this House by a government that had a 25-seat majority in the House of Representatives. The Opposition, now led by Senator Chaney, has the audacity to continually call quorums so that people cannot finish the remarks which they want to make in relation to the Budget. He is a great believer in free and democratic speech in this country. This Opposition voted against the tax recoupment Bills and voted against-- Senator Chaney —I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy President. It must be out of order for an honourable senator to reflect on the requirement that there be a quorum in this place. I think that the speaker should be required to withdraw that remark. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. Senator JONES —Finally, I repeat that members of this Opposition, led by Senator Chaney, voted against an attempt by the Government to regain the $500m lost in revenue through the tax recoupment Bills. They are responsible for the shortage of revenue available to this Government because they supported the tax avoiders, the tax evaders and the crooks in this country. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(12.09) —No one man has done more to tarnish the image of politicians than the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). I take strong exception to the fact that one single dishonourable man can, indeed, tarnish to such a degree-- Senator Tate —I raise a point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President. The honourable senator has referred to the leader of the Government in another place as a dishonourable man. I ask that she withdraw that remark; it must be unparliamentary. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Coleman) —It is an unparliamentary expression, Senator Walters. I ask that you withdraw that remark. Senator WALTERS —I will withdraw it if it is unparliamentary. No single man has tarnished to such a degree the reputation of us all. His blatant dishonesty, his contempt for the Australian people- Senator Tate —Madam Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. Once again the honourable senator is referring to the Leader of the Government in another place as being blatantly dishonest. Once again that is a reflection on the character and integrity of the Prime Minister of Australia, and I seek your ruling as to whether it is unparliamentary. If so, I would seek to have those remarks withdrawn. Senator Chaney —Madam Acting Deputy President, we have just listened to a speech in which the word 'lies' was used, and all the rest. There seems to be a sudden concern on that side of the chamber which was not evident a few minutes ago. In any event, the language used by the honourable senator was not unparliamentary and Government members are simply trying to disrupt her speech. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Coleman) —I rule that it is unparliamentary to refer to the Prime Minister of Australia as being blatantly dishonest, and I suggest that Senator Walters withdraw that remark. Senator WALTERS —Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. It seems to me that on this side of the House we cannot use any expressions against the Prime Minister-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order, Senator Walters! At the moment you are reflecting on the decision of the Chair, and that I will not have. I suggest that you withdraw the comments you have made. Senator WALTERS —I withdraw the comments concerned. The Prime Minister had contempt for the Australian people. I hope that that expression will not be ruled as unparliamentary. He had such contempt for the Australian people that in his policy speech he made a list of promises which at that time he had no intention of keeping. I take exception to the fact that the people of Australia are now saying: 'We have to learn. We obviously have to become accustomed to politicians' words not being kept'. The Prime Minister made these promises, but obviously there was no thought in his mind of keeping them. We recall his promise to reduce taxation, and I will refer to it later. The present Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, in a speech to Labor economists said: If Labor does not gain office next election then by 1983, when we could next hope to gain office, we would face a mammoth task in rebuilding the public sector-and maybe an equally mammoth task in convincing the electorate that it should pay a higher level of tax to enable us to do so. Mr Willis acknowledged that a Labor Government would have to educate the Australian people to pay a higher level of tax to enable it to increase the Public Service. Yet in his policy speech the Prime Minister assured the Australian people that he would reduce taxes, and I will come to that a little later. Let us look at the promises of Mr Hawke, this new Prime Minister of Australia. He started making them before the election was called. He had challenged Mr Hayden's leadership, and when he failed, and failed quite miserably, he then made a promise to the Australian people that he would not challenge that leadership again until after an election. That was the first promise, as a pretender to the leadership, to be broken because prior to the election being announced he did in fact, along with his collegues, challenge that leadership. Indeed, much to their shame, his colleagues allowed him to break that promise and even encouraged him. So he started off breaking his promises well before the election. The Australian people should have been warned , but they did not believe anyone could be quite so compromising. He has dishonoured every promise he made in his policy speech, except the one that he would stop the dam in Tasmania. He said that jobs, jobs, jobs were his main priority. Senator Button —That is not quite correct. Senator WALTERS —As Senator Button says, that is not quite true. It certainly did not work out that way. He then refused to answer questions put to him in the House of Representatives, until he was forced to do so in front of the Hope Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies. He was the one, when questions were being asked in the House of Representatives about 'Who was the one who leaked?', who rang friends and told them not to go into partnership with Mr Combe and so save themselves a considerable amount of money. According to Mr Hawke, he did not tell them why but he did tell them not to go into partnership with Mr Combe, long before his Cabinet knew and long before the Australian public knew that Mr Combe was not to act as a lobbyist. Of course, the Australian people were still paying Mr Combe at this stage for work that Mr Hawke has said could not be carried out. He rang two of his buddies and said: ' Save yourselves some dough. Don't go into partnership with Combe'. Senator Robert Ray —He did not say that at all. Senator WALTERS —That is exactly what happened. He was also paid for speeches that he made while he was still a shadow Minister in the Opposition. He was paid for those parliamentary political speeches under cover until Mr Combe brought out that information before the Royal Commission. Of course, his latest escapade is incredible. He had nearly $4,000 in cash in his briefcase-Australian and American dollars-which was stolen from him in a hotel. That is quite incredible. What sort of man carries cash of that magnitude, and in Australian and American dollars? We will just wait and see what sort of man does that. Now let us look at the broken promises. Senator Giles —Other people get paid in cash. Senator Chaney —They did not like that. Senator WALTERS —No, they did not like that. Prior to the election Mr Hawke said : I believe the Australian people have had enough of election promises made to be broken. I offer no fistful of dollars to be snatched back after the election. Senator Robertson —He was dead right, wasn't he? Senator WALTERS —Wasn't he just! He offered the Australian people cuts in taxation. He said there would be 500,000 new jobs in Labor's first term. Well, we will wait and see on that one. He said there would be 'immediate reductions in income tax for almost six million Australians'. As I have already indicated, he had no intention of keeping that promise because Mr Willis had said previously: 'We have to educate the Australian people to accept increases in taxation to support the enlarged Public Service'. Another one of the Prime Minister's broken promises was that he would not change tax on lump sum superannuation payments. How could anyone be quite so- I am stuck for a word. He told the people he would not impose tax on lump sum superannuation payments, and immediately did so in the first couple of months he was in office. He said he would maintain the home loan interest rebate, but he immediately grabbed that back. He said he would keep the health insurance rebate until the introduction of Medicare, but he grabbed back $550m from the Australian people in the rebates they should have had this year. He said that he would not interfere at all with pensions. We now know that the means testing of the over-70s was introduced in a mini-Budget. He could not even wait for the main Budget to be brought down. He also, of course, introduced an assets test on pensions. Yet this man promised the Australian people he would not touch pensioners' cheques. He assured everyone, including the pensioners, that he would abolish the pharmaceutical declaration form. He did not abolish it ; he introduced a different form. He said that he would increase the spouse rebate and the sole parent rebate. Not only did he not increase those rebates, there were rumours rife that he would get rid of them altogether. Many families were concerned about these rumours. Senator Robert Ray —Who spread the rumours? Senator WALTERS —They were spread by the Australian Labor Party because it was not going to keep its promise of increasing these rebates. It thought that if it spread a rumour that the spouse rebate would be decreased, people would not be so concerned when the promise was broken and it was maintained at its present rate. When we came to office in 1975 the dependent spouse rebate was $400. By 1982 it had gone up to $1,030, well above the inflation rate, because we believed that the spouse at home who is looking after children or elderly parents needs some recognition. The Labor Government has made no recognition at all of that group of women, a fact which appals me. We were also told that drought relief payments to help rural recovery would be maintained for some time . Again, that was another area that was immediately withdrawn. Senator Robert Ray —Don't you know the drought is over? Senator WALTERS —Senator Ray has such little knowledge that he thinks that as soon as it rains the grass grows a couple of inches and stock are well catered for. The man does not have a clue what he is talking about. We were also told that there would be removal of the sales tax on retread tyres and that the price of petrol would be reduced by 3c a litre. What has happened? Not only has the price of petrol not been reduced, it has gone up. It will also be indexed twice- yearly. People will get used to their petrol prices going up because they will go up twice a year in line with the consumer price index. So much for the promise of a reduction in petrol prices. We were told that there would be no more job losses in the steel industry. Senator Button knows to his shame that that promise also was not kept. We were told that there would be a maintaining of the real funding to local government. That was another promise broken. If Senator Button doubts that all he has to do is ask local governments. They will let him know just what they feel about it. We were told that the tax threshold would be lifted to $5,000 for general taxpayers or $5,893 for pensioners. Again, that promise was broken, As I say, every promise has been broken. We have had the excuse from the Government that the reason for all these broken promises-Senator Jones also made this statement today-was that there was a $9.6 billion deficit. I am not quite sure whether Senator Jones, like Senator Cook, was also hoodwinked and swallowed the propaganda laid down by his Party. Indeed, Senator Cook had to come into this place and apologise because he had been hoodwinked by his Government. That $9.6 billion deficit figure was not accurate. It was a proposed deficit. There is no deficit until a Budget is brought down. Once the Budget is brought down there is then a deficit for the following year. The Budget deficit figure of $9.6 billion was made on quite a number of assumptions that were not accurate. Indeed, prior to the recent Budget those assumptions were all revised. So the $9.6 billion deficit figure was a lot of hot air. There is nothing magical about a proposed deficit. Indeed, in 1976 the proposed deficit for the following year was $4.8 billion. When we brought down our Budget that deficit was cut to $2.7 billion, cut nearly in half. In 1978 the proposed Budget deficit was $6 billion. Again, when we brought down the Budget that deficit had dropped to nearly half of the proposed figure, to $3.4 billion. If Mr Hawke had wanted to, he could have halved the proposed deficit as we had done on previous occasions. There is nothing magical about that, yet this Government has told the Australian people that that was its excuse for all its broken promises. It did it so well and so often that its own members swallowed it. Senator Jones stood up here and said that the deficit was $9.6 billion. There was no deficit of that proportion. Senator Cook said similar things and had to come into this place and apologise for having misled the Senate on one occasion because he too had swallowed the Government's propaganda. Let us look at what the deficit is now. It is $8.4 billion, double what the previous Government's deficit was in the previous year. It represents 4.7 per cent of gross domestic product, the largest deficit since the disastrous Whitlam years. Total public sector borrowing will be between 8 and 9 per cent of gross domestic product-at least $13 billion, the largest for more than a quarter of a century. What will that do to interest rates? All the economists are telling us loud and clear what it will do. It will send interest rates up. They estimate that the CPI will go up to between 11 and 12 per cent. The Government's interest rate payments will equal its payments for health and education together, two of our big spending areas. That money will be wasted on interest payments. No country can stand that sort of waste of money. We have already considered the Labor Party's promises regarding pensioners. I would like to go back to that area because it is one about which I am particularly concerned. As I said, the Prime Minister promised that the pensioner cheque would not be touched, yet he introduced the means test for the over-70s. In other words, the aged people of our community who are, I suppose, at a time in life when they most rely on their relatives to look after their budgeting and are not as capable as they used to be of working out their own financial situation are to be penalised. People come to us and say: 'My son has worked out my budgeting for me. I cannot do without that extra money I was getting, un-means tested, that your Government was giving me because the amount of money I had coming in was paying my rent or my accommodation expenses in my unit. I shall now have to downgrade my accommodation. I am 80 years old and I shall have to move so that my budgeting can allow for the additional money that the Government is taking off me'. It is a situation in which the Government has been cruelest, attacking those who are not able to look after their own financial situation. To alter a person's financial situation at the age of 80 years is extremely cruel. Then we come to the assets test that the Government has now applied to pensioners. This is pretty good if one works it properly. The assets test allows one to have a home at any cost, a car of any value, a yacht worth any amount, a caravan, jewellery of any value, works of art of any value, and as many antiques as one can fit into one's home. That is not bad for those who go into that area. The Government says that it does not like double dipping. But let us look at single pensioners who have perhaps a small home, no works of art, very little jewellery, no boat, no caravan and indeed, often, no car-or they might just have a car. But suppose they have been left a holiday home-they are called shacks in Tasmania-that has been in the family for many years. They will be disadvantaged by the Government if it sticks to its present system. Of course, it is all under query because yesterday Senator Grimes went to the Town Hall in Sydney, where 2,000 pensioners told him just what they thought about the Government's scheme. They told him so forcibly what they thought about the scheme that he was then saying: 'Look, don't get so upset. We are thinking about it. We shall have another look at it. We are sort of realising that we did this all in a bit of a hurry. It was not thought through terribly well, and we realise now that there are, perhaps, a few faults in the scheme that we have brought in'. So Senator Grimes quickly got out of the Town Hall and is coming back to Canberra with his tail between his legs, saying to Cabinet: 'Let us have another look at this assets test, because really the pensioners are getting a bit upset with us, and we thought that the pensioners were friends of ours'. Perhaps I may deal for just a few minutes with the only promise that was kept by the Government. That was the stopping of the dam. When the dam was stopped, the Prime Minister assured the Tasmanian people working in that area that no one would be disadvantaged. On Monday there was a comment in the Hobart Mercury by a Mr De Jong, an Ulverstone builder. As he said, he had then the contract to supply the Hydro-Electric Commission with prefabricated kitchens, and dining room and sleeping units for the working sites in the South West area. He had that contract. Because the Government decided to stop the dam, he had to sack 17 employees. That is really creating jobs, is it not? He hoped that he was on the short list to supply portable homes in the Crotties area. Actually, he expected a contract of $3m. What would that have done for jobs in the area? We have no idea. Mr De Jong said that it certainly would have been sizable. Senator Tate —Did he have a contract or was he tendering? Senator WALTERS —If Senator Tate had been in here, he would have heard, but he has only just come in and he is now asking questions on what I have already said . Senator Robertson —I heard. Senator WALTERS —He had a contract earlier. Senator Robertson —He did not have a contract; he had a tender in. Senator WALTERS —He had a contract for the kitchens. He said that he hoped to get the contract for the others. If the Senator looks in Hansard tomorrow, he will find what I said. Senator Robertson —You did not say that. You said that he had a contract. Senator WALTERS —We shall debate that tomorrow, and I hope that I shall get an apology from the senator tomorrow when he has read Hansard. Mr De Jong is now saying: 'I am asking for help because the Prime Minister said that no one would be disadvantaged'. He has already sacked 17 of his employees, because the Prime Minister has not kept his promise to make sure that that man was able to keep his employees on. Senator Tate —That is absolutely untruthful. Senator WALTERS —So much for the Prime Minister's promise to Tasmania that no one would be disadvantaged. To sum up, in this Budget we have a list of broken promises, and nothing more. The Prime Minister ought to get out his policy speech and examine it. The Australian people ought to go to the various papers and re-read that policy speech made prior to the election, and just see for themselves what promises have been kept and what this man has done. The Australian people will never again be able to rely on the word of Mr Hawke unless he now brings forward some of those promises and decides that the Australian people should not be treated in the way in which he has treated them but that they should be treated fairly. Senator FOREMAN(South Australia)(12.37) —Today we have been subjected once again to some very negative comments from the Opposition in relation to this year's Budget. Ever since the Hawke Government came to power, conservative senators in this place have knocked every single initiative of the Government, starting, of course, with the highly successful National Economic Summit Conference in April and now with the very responsible and well balanced Budget brought down by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on 23 August. This year's Budget is a very crucial and timely one for the people of Australia, in that it represents the end of seven years of the most miserable and destabilising economic policies that this country has ever seen. It is significant in that it represents the end of the Fraser-Howard formula which plunged thousands of Australian families into poverty and despair and which dumped hundreds of thousands of decent Australians on the dole queues. The former Ministers of the now discredited Fraser Government have the audacity to come into this chamber and criticise the Hawke Government over its alleged disregard for elderly people and the unemployed, when they presided over the biggest recession Australia has had and were guilty of neglecting the very people whom they now claim to support. This year's Budget has been hailed by most sections of the media and by the business community as moderate and responsible. The conservative Australian Financial Review, which of course tends to be more highly regarded than most of the more sensationalist newspapers, in its coverage of economic issues said of the first Keating Budget: The first Budget of the new Labor Government, brought down last night by the Treasurer, Mr Keating, is a Budget for recovery. It will provide a substantial stimulus to the economy, in the context of an expected stimulus for world economic recovery. The Melbourne Age: The Government has produced a neatly balanced Budget . . . The Budget has combined a reasonable degree of economic responsibility with a fair reordering of social priorities. Even some of the more extreme right wing journals such as the Australian were at pains to find something wrong with the general approach and strategy behind the first Budget brought down by the new Labor Government. I think what irks the Opposition most of all is the overwhelming support the Budget has received from the business community. While the Opposition was no doubt hoping for unanimous rejection of the Budget by its traditional supporters, it woke up on Wednesday, 24 August, to find nothing but praise from the business sector for the responsible approach adopted by the Government. In an article headed 'Business praises Budget measures' which appeared in the Age on 25 August, David Uren wrote: Representatives of the banking, life offices and accounting bodies yesterday described the Budget as responsible . . . The chief general manager of Westpac Banking Corporation, Mr Bob White, said the Budget was a generally responsible document. He welcomed the Government's commitment to the recovery of the private sector, by avoiding taxation imposts on companies and he commended the flexible attitude to monetary policy. Further down in the article reference was made to the chief economist of the Australian Mutual Provident Society, Dr Harold Bell, who said: . . . the Budget represented a significant expansionary push for the economy while being fiscally responsible. Another indication of the massive acceptance by the business community of this year's Budget was the reaction on the stock markets. In the Australian Financial Review of 25 August, the headline 'share buyers give salute to Labor' heralded the massive upsurge in share prices immediately following the Budget. In the Age , under the headline 'Stocks soar in response to the Budget', the following appeared: Investors on Australian stock markets gave the Federal Budget a euphoric reception yesterday, adding about 1,000 million dollars to the value of the market in a heavy buying spree. Given the magnificent reception the Budget has received from the business community, it is no wonder that the Opposition is becoming frustrated and disillusioned. Given the situation it left the economy in, with an impending Budget deficit of $10.4 billion, the Opposition attacks on the Budget are hollow and unconstructive. Because of the previous Government's almost criminal neglect of the needy and less affluent groups in the community, what we have set about achieving in our first Budget represents, as the Treasurer said, a substantial reordering of priorities. We have aimed to provide the proper setting for sustained economic recovery while at the same time giving special assistance to those people who have been hardest hit by the recession. In this way we have launched an all out attack on the tax evasion industry which has robbed the ordinary working people of this country of thousands of millions of dollars and we have attempted to put an end once and for all to middle class welfare, to ensure that the limited funds that are available go to those in most need. In this regard, the reintroduction of the assets test on pensioners is a genuine attempt to stop the very wealthy in the community from ripping off the system. Debate interrrupted. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Senator DURACK —I ask the Attorney-General: Is the proposal for a national crimes authority, which the Caucus declined to approve in principle yesterday, along the lines of the Victorian Government's submission to the National Crimes Commission seminar? Does the Attorney-General agree that this is already a much watered down version of the former Government's National Crimes Commission Act? Does the decision yesterday mean that Caucus wants to weaken the proposal even further? Senator GARETH EVANS —If Senator Durack can curb his impatience all will be revealed, I hope in another week or two. The Caucus decision yesterday, despite some reports to the contrary, endorsed the basic thrust of the submission that was presented to it. It simply wanted an opportunity to review some aspects of the detail of the proposal. That will occur within the next week or so and I hope that it will be possible, accordingly, to make an announcement which will make very clear what the nature and extent of the Government's proposal is and how useful, valuable and justified it is. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Has there been an improvement in the national level of new dwelling commencements in the June quarter this year compared with the corresponding period of 1982? Has the change in the level of housing commencement been uniform among the States? How does the current level of new dwelling commencements in South Australia compare with the position in that State last year? Senator WALSH —There has been a substantial improvement in the June quarter 1983 over the June quarter 1982 in both commencements and approvals for new dwelling constructions. New dwelling commencements nationally have increased by 3 per cent over that 12 month period. Dwelling approvals have increased by 5 per cent over that period. Senator Maguire also asked whether the increase had been uniform throughout the States. The answer is no, there is a very wide disparity between the level of improvement in some States and the level of improvement in others. In Senator Maguire's State, for example, over the 12 month period to the June quarter 1983 the level of commencements increased by no less than 25 per cent. I think that is the highest of all the States. The level of approvals, likewise, which indicates the commencements at a later time, also increased by 25 per cent. At the other end of that scale, in Queensland new dwelling commencements in the June quarter 1983 as against the June quarter 1982 actually fell by 13 per cent against the national trend where there is an increase of 3 per cent. New dwelling approvals in Queensland fell in the June quarter relative to the previous June quarter by 12 per cent. It is quite clear that Queensland is retarding the national economic recovery. Queensland has long had the lowest per capita income of any of the States. It has also accumulated over the last decade or so the highest per capita level of debt of all the States. In short, the answer to Senator Maguire's question is that the building industry has shown substantial improvement nationally; it has shown a quite remarkable improvement in South Australia; but in Queensland it remains retarded. In the building industry as in economic activity in general Queensland is retarding the national economic recovery. That is a situation which, given an appropriate verdict on 22 October, should start to turn around some time in 1984. Senator JESSOP —I direct a question to the Attorney-General. I remind him of the clear undertaking given by the Prime Minister in the House of Representatives on 19 May when he answered a question from Mr Anthony. He said: . . . at the beginning of 1984, we will be in place, with the proclamation of the Act, for the National Crimes Commission to take over, in the most effective way, the work of the royal commission. He was referring to the Costigan Royal Commission. Can the Attorney-General say whether the decision of Caucus yesterday on the national crimes authority will jeopardise the firm undertaking given by the Prime Minister in May? Senator GARETH EVANS —Unlike the Liberal Party, the Australian Labor Party does not work on the fuhrer principle, where all directions from the top flow down into immediate implementation. There is a process of internal party democracy to go through which has made the Labor Party the great and splendid institution it is today, even if some Ministers may be embarrassed along the way by the said democratic processes. I am sure that those democratic processes when they have fully played themselves out-as I indicated in answer to Senator Durack, they are expected to do so within the next week or so-will prove that the Prime Minister' s statement in May was made with his usual foresight and that early in 1984, if not necessarily on 1 January, an appropriate mechanism will be in place to maintain the continued vigilance over organised and sophisticated crime in this country. Beyond that, I do not propose to indicate any more detail. Senator GILES —Has the Acting Minister for Health seen recent reports of a survey conducted by the Australian Medical Association from which that organisation draws the questionable conclusion that few doctors will be prepared to bulk bill the Government directly for services rendered after the introduction of Medicare on 1 February 1984? Has the Government been able to make any assessment about the degree to which doctors will be prepared to co- operate? Senator GRIMES —I have noticed the AMA's survey of doctors' billing intentions under Medicare. I have also noted Dr Thompson's comments on the matter. I must say that I do not regard the results as in any way conclusive or providing any real indication of what will happen after the introduction of Medicare. The AMA, in particular, is very fond of conducting surveys like this and using statistical methods which, if they were used in articles in the Australian Medical Journal for instance, would immediately provoke howls of protest from its own members. This survey was a voluntary one. Given the AMA's well-known antipathy to bulk billing, I am sure, as has happened in the past, that doctors who were inclined to reply were in fact those who feel very strongly against bulk billing. I am sure that the approximately 3,050 respondents out of the 5, 108 or 5,109 who were questioned would be a sample biased against direct billing , not intentionally but because of the nature of the survey and the way it was conducted. In any case, they represent only about 10 per cent of practising doctors in Australia. There are also contradictions in the results of the survey which cast doubts on its value. It claimed that 76 per cent of doctors favour direct billing for pensioners and other social security beneficiaries. I believe that demonstrates even more the inbuilt bias against direct billing because currently 90 per cent of services for those people are direct billed. The AMA's president, Dr Thompson , says that the average level of bad debts reported was 4.8 per cent. I must say that I wonder whether a survey of tax returns might indicate a higher figure than that being claimed. Still, it is unarguable that direct billing will remove all bad debts. Despite this, by some jump of logic 80 per cent of doctors claimed that direct billing of all patients either would make no difference to bad debts or would increase administrative and overhead costs. I find that an extraordinary result, a result which would not be understood by anyone who has any knowledge of the subject. Looking at those results, I do not think the survey can be said to have proved anything. We as politicians are fond of saying that there is only one poll that counts, and we will see the result of that six or 12 months after the introduction of Medicare, when I am sure, as I know the honourable senator is, that the percentage who bulk bill will be considerably higher than the AMA survey shows. Senator CHIPP —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I quote the statement, which he quite properly quotes back to me when I ask about nuclear deterrence, by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, of 15 September, in which he said: . . . the contribution made by the joint defence facilities to the deterrence of nuclear war fully justifies any risk . . . from our having those facilities in Australia. It is about that risk that I want to ask the Minister, and I ask in the context of the possibility of a Soviet pre-emptive nuclear strike on the United States: Is it this Government's assessment that United States submarines carry up to 5, 000 nuclear warheads ready for immediate dispatch to all parts of the Soviet Union as a response to a Soviet pre-emptive strike? Is not the United States communications base at North West Cape crucial to the accurate deployment of those submarines and their missiles? Is the Government's official view, therefore, that in the case of a Soviet pre-emptive strike North West Cape would first have to be destroyed? Is North West Cape the only risk, in the Government' s view, to which Mr Hayden referred in the 'justifies any risk' phrase of his ANZUS statement of 15 September 1983? If not, what other places, in the Government's view, are at risk? Senator GARETH EVANS —I congratulate Senator Chipp for keeping alive, at an appropriate level of seriousness, an exchange between us that was in danger of disintegrating with Senator Mason's question yesterday. In answer to the specific question raised by Senator Chipp, on the information available to me from the Minister for Foreign Affairs I am able to say that, in the Government's assessment, by itself North West Cape is not crucial to the accurate deployment of the submarines and missiles to which he referred. The station is an important element in the United States Navy's communications network. That network is crucial, in turn, to the operation of United States submarines. However, the network includes a high degree of redundancy in order to ensure that United States military communications can continue to operate in time of war. North West Cape thus assists the United States to ensure the survivability of communications to its submarines. The Government does not agree that, in the event of a pre-emptive Soviet nuclear strike on the United States, North West Cape would first have to be destroyed. In such a situation the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics would presumably weigh the strategic value of a range of possible targets, including the United States intercontinental ballistic missile force and key command and control centres in the United States and other strategic forces that could be used against it. We cannot know what choices the Soviet Union might make in the highly improbable situation which this question postulates. I remind the honourable senator, however, that North West Cape is only a relay station; it is not a command and control centre. I am afraid I am not prepared to comment further on the roles of the classified facilities at Pine Gap and Nurrungar. As such, it becomes more difficult to answer the question as to the risk factor associated with those in the terms in which Senator Chipp has pressed me. As I informed Senator Mason yesterday, the Government doubts that definitive predictions can be made about the targeting practices of the super-powers in the kind of hypothetical circumstances we are talking about in relation to any of these sites. I do not really see that, apart from that further contribution to the debate, much more can be said about the matter from the Government's point of view. Senator REYNOLDS —I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Is the Minister aware of serious delays in implementing the community employment program brought about by the Queensland Government's failure to finalise minor details which have already been resolved in other States? Furthermore, is the Minister able to explain, firstly, why the community employment program apparently will operate from either the Premier's Department or Treasury in that State rather than from the Department of Employment and Labour Relations; and secondly, why Queensland projects have not yet been announced as has been the case elsewhere, with the South Australian projects being announced yesterday? Senator BUTTON —I am not aware why the program will operate from the Premier's office. I do not know what other choice I was given, but I understood that everything in Queensland operated from the Premier's office, and that may well be the reason. The point of the question was about delays, essentially, in the implementation of the community employment program. I am informed that the Queensland Government agreed to the guidelines and administrative arrangements in respect of the program on 9 August 1983. It was the last State so to agree. South Australia, for example, has approved the first projects under the scheme- 13 projects to cost $1.43m-and Queensland is the last cab off the rank in organising projects under the program. In relation to the State of Queensland, there have been 130 applications to date from potential sponsors of projects and over 1,200 inquiries. The Federal Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, advised the State of Queensland on 11 July 1983 of the proposed structure of the consultative committee which is to make recommendations on project approvals. This structure was endorsed in the Commonwealth-State agreement on 9 August 1983 . It is true that on 23 September 1983 the Queensland Premier made nominations to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations for the membership of the consultative committee, but these nominations by the Queensland Premier are not in accordance with the committee structure which was previously agreed. Senator Lewis —Why don't you make a statement at the proper time? Senator BUTTON —For example, for Senator Lewis's benefit, the Queensland Premier sought two State Government nominees in lieu of one. He refused to nominate a member of the National Aboriginal Conference as a representative of Aboriginals, and he declined to nominate a youth representative from the Youth Affairs Council of Queensland. That situation has not arisen in any other State. Until a committee is formed in accordance with the agreement it is just not possible to approve projects. I should add that the agreement also made provision for a joint Commonwealth-State secretariat, and the Queensland Government in respect of that matter has proposed arrangements and staffing levels which would not permit the secretariat to function effectively and the program to get off the ground in Queensland. In the absence of that sort of suitable administrative structure, officers of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations are now undertaking whatever preliminary activities they can with respect to the applications which have already been lodged. I summarise by simply saying that, having originally agreed to the structure, the Queensland Government, for reasons which I suppose can be interpreted only by the people of Queensland, has gone back on the original agreement in relation to that structure and has been responsible for a lot of delays in the implementation of a very worthwhile and important Commonwealth program. Senator CHANEY —My question is also addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and follows on from the question he has just answered. I ask: Is it a fact that the administration of the community employment program by the State of New South Wales in some respects is outside the guidelines which have been agreed and that this has been a matter of complaint by members of parliament from that State? If that is a fact, has the Commonwealth placed any restriction on the expenditure of moneys by that State or does it merely hold up the supply of moneys to non-Labor States ? Senator BUTTON —First of all, with regard to the last part of the question, there is no question of holding up moneys to non-Labor States. If Senator Chaney had listened to the last answer before asking a question which followed on, he might have understood why I dispute the suggestion made in the latter part of his question. Insofar as New South Wales is concerned, there have been some delays as there have in every other State but not of the order-- Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle —Why didn't you tell us about that when referring to Queensland? The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator is answering one question. Senator BUTTON —Well, I am grateful for the interjection, Mr President. There seems to be a collective view on the other side for once and that is a very healthy sign. Of course, any such program cannot be implemented without differences of opinion and difficulties. All I am saying is that Queensland has not even agreed on the structure at the moment. The Opposition may approve of not agreeing on the structure; the Government does not. Insofar as New South Wales is concerned, of course there have been queries and disagreements amongst members of parliament about the nature of projects which should be funded and so on under the scheme. But if the honourable senator requires any more specific details, I will obtain them from the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Senator TATE —My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. Is it a fact, as reported in the Press recently, that abuse of the welfare system is costing Australian taxpayers many millions of dollars a year? Does the Government believe that stringent action needs to be taken and adequate resources need to be provided to catch those cheating on the system? Does he agree-- Senator Lewis —Why do you continue to ask such dorothy dix questions? Senator TATE —It is not a dorothy dixer; it is in my own writing. Does the Minister agree that general support for the welfare payment system in the community generally, and amongst taxpayers in particular, depends on confidence that those receiving benefits truly require them? Senator GRIMES —It is interesting that the one or two questions that are not dorothy dixers always are accused of being dorothy dixers. Yes, in a social security system which involves the payment of some $13 billion and some 80 million cheques per year there are always some people who will abuse the system just as there are doctors amongst the 25,000-odd doctors, just as there are lawyers and teachers or anyone else who will abuse the system. Of course, if there is an expenditure of up to $14 billion, the cost in terms of abuse may reach some millions of dollars. There is no denying that, nor does that mean that I applaud or agree with that situation. The article in the Melbourne Age, to which I believe Senator Tate referred, implied that the Government was indulging in a crackdown or a blitz on such welfare abuse because it intends to increase considerably the penalties for fraud and abuse not only by welfare recipients but also, for instance, by public servants who abuse the privacy provisions of the legislation. However, those penalties will be increased simply because in some cases they have not been increased since 1974 or 1977 and in other cases even since 1947. There was a need to upgrade those penalties in line with changes in money values and in accordance with the nature of offences. The second part of Senator Tate's question is an important one. If we were to reach a stage where the system was so effective that there was no abuse, that there was no possibility of anyone getting at the system, in fact large numbers of people would be disadvantaged because in such a system large numbers of innocent people would be affected and large numbers of people who are entitled to benefits would not get them. This was demonstrated by the previous Government 's approach of having occasional blitzes in the unemployment beneficiary area and other areas. The result of those blitzes was that large numbers of innocent people were picked up and in some cases some 80 to 90 per cent of people who lost benefits as a result of such episodes were put back on those benefits following an appeal. What we need is a system which is simple enough to be understood by the clients , which is simple enough that its fairness is understood by the taxpayers who pay for the system and which is simple enough to be administered effectively. There is a great myth that by making a system more complicated, by making it administratively difficult, it is easier for public servants to overcome fraud. The opposite is in fact the case. Those people-those smarties, if you like-who are able to manipulate the system are happier and can operate without detection much more easily in a complicated, administratively difficult system. It is for that reason that we will seek to strike a balance between ensuring that there is the minimum amount of fraud and misappropriation in the system but at the same time ensuring that those people who seek and need assistance, get assistance. We will continue to cast our policies in that way. Senator COLLARD —My question, which is addressed to the Attorney-General, concerns what he spoke of previously as Labor's in-house democracy at work. Is it true, as widely reported in this morning's Press, that one of the main reasons for the Attorney-General's failure to get Caucus approval for the national crimes authority Bill was the opposition of the former Special Minister of State, Mr Young, who, when he was Minister, had joint responsibility with the Attorney-General for this matter? Does he think that Mr Young's reported reason for now opposing such authority, namely 'certain recent events' provides sufficient grounds for the Government as a whole to have second thoughts about the proposal? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Australian Labor Party's and my passion for internal party democracy does not extend to sharing the fruits of that passion with members of the National Party or any other party. It is not appropriate that matters of internal discussion and debate of this kind within the Party be canvassed in this forum or any other. I do not propose to answer the question put to me. Senator ZAKHAROV —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs aware that some visitors to Australia, particularly those who are elderly and/or speak little English, fail to understand the full implications of overstaying the term of visitors' visas? Can further measures be taken to improve communication in such cases and thus prevent unnecessary distress for visitors and their families? Senator GRIMES —I am informed by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs that certainly at times some elderly people, like others, do overstay the term of their visitors' visas. I think it is worth while pointing out that all visitors to Australia, including the elderly, sign undertakings overseas printed in their own languages-in languages other than English where appropriate-that they will not seek to remain in Australia beyond the period of the stay authorised on their visa. However, it is obvious that some elderly uneducated visitors may not always understand the significance of what they have signed and , of course, the circumstances of some people change when they are in Australia. If they overstay wittingly or unwittingly in Australia, under the law they become prohibited immigrants. Allowance is made to the fullest extent possible for the aged and the circumstances of elderly overstayers located by the Department is taken into account. Elderly people, for instance, are certainly not normally placed in custody but they may be required to report to the Department while their status and situation in Australia are examined. When elderly overstayers come to notice , account is taken of their individual circumstances, whether under normal policy they have any eligibility or claim for further stay or change of status. If they are not eligible to remain or if their status remains unchanged, the person concerned still has the option of leaving the country voluntarily. Certainly, the question of enforced departure of such people would be considered very much as a last resort. Presumably, when elderly visitors come here to stay with relatives, those relatives should be interested to ensure that the visitors' immigration status remains lawful during the visit. There are provisions whereby people in such circumstances can have their eligibility extended. I believe it is not up to just the elderly visitors, who are often in the sorts of difficulties which Sentor Zakharov implied, but also their relatives in this country to assist by ensuring that the law is obeyed as far as possible in these circumstances. Senator MARTIN —My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. Whilst I agree with the Attorney that he has a right to an opinion that it may not be appropriate to canvass internal party discussions, will he not agree that it is appropriate that he indicate to the public his intention in relation to such important legislation as that for the national crimes authority? Will he give an undertaking that in an attempt to salvage his reputation as a 'professional civil libertarian' he will not agree to changes which will further water down the national crimes authority legislation? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have already given an indication of the direction in which the Government is heading insofar as this crimes commission or, as it is to be redesignated, national crimes authority, is concerned. Whether my reputation at the end of the process is greater as a civil libertarian or as an authoritarian will remain a matter for the judgment of Senator Martin and other honourable senators in this chamber. Senator CROWLEY —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. On a recent trip to Peterborough, which is in South Australia and not in Queensland, I was reminded of the difficulties facing that town, partly as a consequence of the changes in rail provisions by the Australian National Railways Commission. Some of the changes include reduced services for the supply of food and provisions each week. Other changes are due to the changeover to standard line. As well as the economic criteria for assessment and reassessment of rail services, the Government promised a community impact study, examining the impact on towns of proposed changes, because in the long run the social cost to towns of a major rundown is greater than the more immediate loss of dollars to ANR. Can the Minister say what stage the implementation of such a community impact study has reached and/or whether any such study has been done? Senator GIETZELT —Senator Crowley was kind enough to indicate to me that she wished to ask a question with respect to Peterborough in South Australia. I sought some assistance from the Minister for Transport, whom I represent in this place. I am advised that following completion of the Adelaide-Crystal Brook standard gauge link there have been some rearrangements of rail operations, which have resulted in some reduction in the number of staff required at Peterborough. As a result, some positions have been transferred to Adelaide. I understand that freight services to Peterborough are essentially the same as they were before the commencement of the standard gauge services via Port Pirie. Australian National is currently preparing proposals regarding passenger services and the Government will consider those proposals when they are available. Senator Crowley asked me whether there will be a community based impact statement. I give an assurance that that will be done by the Government. The Australian National Railways Commission is in the process of identifying possible community service obligations from among its total operations. The Government will examine Australian National's proposals when they have been fully developed. I remind the Senate that the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure, in its report which was published in 1982, recommended that community service obligations be identified and community service impact statements be prepared and that they be funded via separate revenue support. That is consistent with the Government's view and will be taken into consideration. Senator BOSWELL —Has the Attorney-General recommended the early release of any Federal offenders in New South Wales in conjunction with the scheme which was, until recently, operating in that State? If so, which Minister or Ministers of the New South Wales Government sought such action and what were the names and dates of release of the prisoner or prisoners concerned? Senator GARETH EVANS —The only prisoners in New South Wales over whom I have any jurisdiction are, of course, those who are imprisoned in New South Wales as a result of being convicted for Federal offences. The mechanism by which such persons come up for release, whether on parole or after the expiry of their non- parole period, is on the basis of representations made directly to me by the prisoners concerned. They are not in any way filtered through, as far as I am aware, the New South Wales gaol authorities. They are certainly not filtered through the New South Wales Government. I have authorised the release of a number of Federal prisoners on one ground or another but, in the absence of any early release on licence scheme operating at the Commonwealth level, in each case that release has been only within parameters, on the basis of criteria and according to rules which have been laid down and observed by a succession of governments. One of the difficult policy questions with which I was grappling until the demise of the New South Wales scheme was whether there ought to be at the Commonwealth level a similar early release scheme in order to ensure comparability of treatment between Commonwealth prisoners in New South Wales gaols and New South Wales prisoners. It was not, I hasten to add, because I wanted a piece of the alleged action; it was only in order to ensure that there was no discrimination in terms of the way in which people in the same practical situation were regarded. If Senator Boswell wants to pursue the matter further in respect of the matters of detail he canvassed in his question, in the light of what I have said, I ask that he put a question on notice. Senator ROBERT RAY —Is the Minister representing the Special Minister of State aware that Queensland has the highest disparity between the number of electors enrolled and the number entitled to be enrolled? Is it also a fact that the Queensland State electoral roll has even fewer electors than has the Federal roll for Queensland? To what extent is this situation caused by the lack of a joint roll arrangement? Finally, will the Commonwealth Government again approach the Queensland Government with a view to establishing a joint roll? Senator GARETH EVANS —I was not aware of the suggested fact which Senator Ray has brought to my attention about the disparity between enrolments and those entitled to be enrolled, but I am surprised about nothing when it comes to the quality of democracy in the State of Queensland. I know there has been a history of endeavours to create a more effective joint roll system in that State. I certainly indicate on behalf of the Special Minister of State that further approaches will be made to the Queensland Government in this respect, although one could hardly expect them to bear fruit until after the election on 22 October. Senator TEAGUE —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. Did the Government direct counsel for the Commonwealth to submit in his closing address to the Hope Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies on 26 September that the former Special Minister of State improperly released confidential information? Senator GARETH EVANS —It was a matter of discussion and instruction from the Commonwealth Government to counsel as to the way in which that matter was presented to the Commission, along with all the other basic responses, but I do not believe the newspaper reports of those submissions this morning in any way accurately reflected the character and tenor of the submission that was made; certainly the headlines did not. The submission, in essence, was that any release of information from a Cabinet discussion of the kind that was involved with the meeting of the Committee on National and International Security was almost by definition improper to the extent that it was unauthorised and so much was stating almost a truism. The real substance of the submission of counsel for the Commonwealth-the honourable senator might read the transcript; it is now publicly available-was to say that it was wholly a matter for the Commissioner, Mr Justice Hope, as to the degree of impropriety that he ascribed to the release of the information in question. Clearly, there is a very long continuum that one can draw in cases such as this between matters of technical impropriety but comparative triviality and matters of very great impropriety indeed, bordering on criminality. Where the line should be struck on that particular continuum was something that Commonwealth counsel made very clear was a matter for Mr Justice Hope. Indeed, Commonwealth counsel drew His Honour Mr Justice Hope's attention to a number of matters that ought properly to be taken into account in mitigation of the circumstances, at least of the Friday conversation involving Mr Young. I do not retreat in any way from the proposition that this submission was made on the basis of discussion with and formal instructions from the Commonwealth. But the context in which those instructions were given and the character of the way in which they were carried out is a very much more complicated story than the impression the honourable senator has clearly received from this morning's newspaper report. Senator TEAGUE —I ask a supplementary question. Is the Attorney-General saying that in this, one of the central issues of the Commission's inquiry, counsel was in all respects acting on the Government's instructions? Senator GARETH EVANS —The Attorney-General is saying what he has said and no more. Senator FOREMAN —My question is directed to the Attorney-General and concerns the 'adults only' classification given to the film clip of the song Street Kids which effectively prevents its being televised before 8.30 p.m. Is the Attorney aware of claims by the singer and producer that the main purpose of the song is to educate young people about the futility of taking drugs and that all proceeds from the record will go to the Melbourne based Open Family Foundation? What action can the Government take to reverse this rather stupid decision of the Film Censorship Board? Senator GARETH EVANS —It has not been my privilege to see or listen to the tape of the song Street Kids so I cannot form any personal judgment as to the merit or otherwise of the action that has been taken in respect of it. What I can say is that the Film Censorship Board is an independent statutory body. It classifies film for broadcast on Australian television, other than that produced under the auspices of a local Australian television station, on behalf of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal and in accordance with the Tribunal's program standards. Those standards set out the criteria for classification and the times at which items which have attracted various classifications may be screened. I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the information which Senator Foreman has given to me about the banning, as it were, before 8.30 p.m. of that particular item. As to what might be able to be done about it, it is not a matter for direct government intervention, given the independent statutory character of the Board and its functions in this area. But it is always open to applicants who are dissatisfied with the classification that they have received to appeal to the Tribunal for a review of the Board's decision. I understand that to date no appeal relating to the clip Street Kids has been lodged with the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, but that course of action is certainly open to the complainants in this matter should they feel that they have a case that can effectively be made out. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. Since the Hawke Government, through its counsel and after hearing all evidence, has informed the Hope Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies that it regards Mr Young's conduct as improper and has invited the Royal Commissioner to form a similar opinion, why has the Government not acted already on its judgment of impropriety and filled Mr Young's former portfolio? Secondly, since a judgment of impropriety on a Minister must in the final analysis be an executive and not a judicial one, does the Government in respect of future incidents intend to make its own decisions or does it intend to set up judicial inquiries into such incidents? Senator GARETH EVANS —There is very little I can add to my previous answer. That was the submission, as I indicated, in bald terms, that was made to the Commission. But there are manifestly many shades and degrees of impropriety and I suggest that the particular inferences that Senator Sir John Carrick wishes to draw from this state of affairs depend very much on where along the spectrum or continuum of impropriety the particular conduct in question rests. The Government takes the view that, rather than make any unilateral judgment about that matter, it ought properly, in the interest of fairness, and not least to Mr Young, to await the outcome of the Commission's findings, which will no doubt be directed among other things to that matter. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I ask a supplementary question. Since the Government was willing to assert before the Commission that it believed that Mr Young's conduct was improper, what was the Government's view of the degree of impropriety? As I understand the situation from the Attorney, it is willing to say that the conduct was improper and willing to say that there are degrees of impropriety but not willing to indicate what in its judgment was the degree of impropriety. I invite him to tell the Senate what is the Government's judgment as to the degree of impropriety. Senator GARETH EVANS —As was made clear in my formal opinion given to the Hope Royal Commission on this matter, a number of factors have to be taken into account in determining impropriety. But the most obvious of them in this particular case is the precise factual situation in terms of what actually was communicated on the evening in question about which there is considerable conflict of testimony before the Commission. The Government's view is simply that it, not being armed with almighty powers in these matters, despite some appearances to the contrary, is unable, not to mention unwilling, to make any such judgment on contested or controversial matters of fact. We would prefer- indeed we regard this as the only appropriate course of action to take-to leave those matters of judgment to the Royal Commission. Senator BOLKUS —My question is also to the Attorney-General. Senator Walters —Are you asking about Mr Young, too? Senator BOLKUS —It is good to see that the level of inanity from Senator Walters continues. Has the Attorney-General seen the policy proposal adopted by one of Australia's minority political parties which proposes a constitutional amendment to prevent international agreements affecting any Australian States without the particular State's approval? Can the Attorney-General say what effect such a requirement would have on Australia's standing in the international arena? Senator GARETH EVANS —I have seen reports recently that a party that still has the hide to call itself the Liberal Party of Australia has in fact adopted a policy endorsing the proposal that any treaty implementation exercise be the subject in effect of a veto power so far as the States are concerned. This is absolute nonsense for a variety of reasons which I will now endeavour to spell out. Very few treaties allow a country or nation which is a party to them to have the right to apply them only to some parts of its territory. The great majority of treaties require a participating country to accept obligations with respect to the whole of its territory. Therefore, there is no scope for individual Australian States not to accept a great many, perhaps the majority, of existing treaties as a matter of international law. Various proposals have been mentioned which would have the effect of preventing Australia from becoming a party to treaties in the first place unless the States, or a majority of them, gave their consent. This kind of thinking reveals quite basic misconceptions about the nature of international law and about the role of a national government. In the first place, to the extent that these proposals seek to limit the Commonwealth's external affairs power, they are quite misconceived. The Commonwealth has power already in respect of a great many subjects, such as defence, international trade and commerce, taxation and immigration, that would enable a great many treaty subjects to be covered by legislation without any reference to the external affairs power. Therefore, it is absolutely nonsensical to talk about preserving the Commmonwealth's power with regard to defence, for example, in that context. Secondly, talk of so-called traditional State areas is again misconceived. For example, some people might regard education as a traditional State area, but a State law prohibiting, say, Aborigines from attending a university would clearly have a quite profound effect on Australia's international relations. As the Chief Justice of the High Court-the Chief Justice; not just one of the puisne judges down the line-has said, any subject matter may become an external affair if it is treated in a way that involves a relationship with other countries or with persons or things outside Australia. Thirdly, some people, again in the Opposition parties, seem to have the view that Australia should turn its back on treaties that have been widely accepted elsewhere if giving effect to them would cause inconvenience or difficulty for some States. I suggest that this amounts to, as Senator Bolkus indicated, a policy of isolationism from a world that is becoming increasingly and quite properly concerned about recognising universal values. It would be an extreme form of hypocrisy for Australia to express its support for those universal values while refusing to give effect to them in its own territory. Finally, if Australia is to accept international treaties there can be no question that the ultimate responsibility for complying with them rests with the Commonwealth. The States are not recognised as having any responsibility as a matter of international law. Only the national Government bears this responsibility and can be called to account by the international community. There is nothing to prevent a State, of course, expressing support for an international principle one year and then denouncing that same principle the next year, perhaps as a result of a change of government. That is exactly what happened in the Tasmanian dam case. It is just not conceivable that any Commonwealth government would be prepared to prejudice its standing in the international community by allowing itself to be subjected to whims and fancies of this kind at the State level. It is a nonsensical policy proposal from a whole variety of viewpoints. I hope that point is well and truly appreciated by people who might otherwise be minded to take this once great Party seriously. Senator CHANEY —Is the Minister for Resources and Energy aware of the numerous reports on the strengthening of the world uranium market? Has he seen the article entitled 'Australia: Uranium Giant Limps on Export Front' in the latest issue of the Bulletin where it is stated that the uranium spot price has risen strongly in the past 12 months, that the long term contract price is believed to average about $US35 per pound and that, for the first time in many years, world demand for uranium will exceed production, indicating that prices will rise higher? Does the Minister still stand by his comments made in March this year that it is economics, not politics, that will prevent uranium development and export for at least the life of the present Parliament and 'the chances of contracts being signed for the minimum export price established by the previous Government-$US35 per pound-are nil at the moment'? Will the Minister now state categorically that if new contracts can be signed above the floor price of $US35 per pound they will be approved by the Government? Finally, will the Government, together with the South Australian Government, reconsider the decision made on what is now proved to be bogus economic grounds to prevent the development of the Honeymoon and Beverley mines in South Australia? Senator WALSH —I have seen the article in glancing through the headlines in today 's Bulletin. I have not read it and I do not know, therefore, what sort of speculation it contains about what whoever wrote that article-I think it was David Haselhurst-believes the potential long term contract price for uranium is or where David Haselhurst obtained that information. I believe the spot price last week was $US24 per pound which, while it is correct that it is up somewhat on the price that prevailed towards the end of last year, is still very much below the general benchmark looked for by the previous Government of just above $US30 per pound. I might add that it was considerably further below the average price presently being obtained by Australian exporters of uranium. Senator Chaney also asked me whether I still maintain that it is economics and not politics which is preventing the expansion of the Australian uranium mining industry. Yes, I believe that that is still the case. The degree of time for which that continues to be correct is a matter of judgment, but I believe it is unquestionably still correct at this time. That view has been confirmed by Total Australia Ltd in a letter to the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment written, I think, in April this year. It was, of course, also endorsed by a letter from Queensland Mines Ltd to the Federated Miscellaneous Workers Union of Australia in February this year, although I would not like to be held precisely to those dates. Senator Chaney asked me also to state whether a contract could be written for supply at some time into the distant future-obviously, if it was from anyone other than an existing producer it would have to be some time into the reasonably distant future-and would I state categorically that that would be approved. The answer is: No, I will not give such a categorical statement because, as Senator Chaney has been told many times here, and I am sure he has also heard it elsewhere, this whole question is the subject for Cabinet consideration scheduled for, I believe, a fortnight hence. In relation to his final comment regarding the Beverley prospect in South Australia, let me say this: If every tin pot uranium deposit in Australia such as Beverley, Honeymoon, Lake Way and a number of others were to be developed, one of the economic consequences of such development would be that the future of Roxby Downs would be threatened, at the very least, and, in all probability, its economic viability throughout the 1990s would be destroyed. Roxby Downs, as I said last week, may be the largest ore body in the world of a number of minerals. That, of itself, does not make it a viable mining proposition. That is a fact which is obviously appreciated by Western Mining Corporation Ltd, which is still conducting its economic feasibility study of the project which is to continue until the end of 1984. I do not want to pass judgment on the economic viability, or otherwise, of Roxby Downs other than to say that it is by no means assured. Given that fact, if the potential to supply uranium which Roxby Downs has was to be pre-empted by the development of every other tin pot uranium prospect in Australia, then the economic viability of Roxby Downs might well be destroyed. If Senator Chaney, the Opposition, the Liberal Party and honourable senators from South Australia like Senator Messner want to destroy the economic viability of Roxby Downs, then let them go ahead and do it. This Government will not do it . Senator CHANEY —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. In light of the last third of the Minister's answer relating to Roxby Downs, is he saying that it is the Government's role to ensure that those projects approved by the Government do succeed economically and that to do that he will exclude competitors from the field? Senator WALSH —The Fox report on the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry recommended sequential development of the Australian uranium mining industry. I am not sure what the response of the then Government to those recommendations was or indeed whether it had a coherent and unified policy at all. As with most other matters, the Liberal Party members squabble among themselves about specific policy matters. Then there is the bigger squabble between the Liberal Party and the National Party of Australia on a number of other policy matters with the Liberal Party almost invariably caving in to the flea that infests it. Governments, including the former Government of which Senator Chaney was a member, have made political decisions and arbitrary decisions, call them what you like, to close down certain mining operations. I remember Fraser Island, for example, where the Fraser Government closed down a mining operation that was actually producing and had been for some time. Governments make these decisions from time to time. The previous Government gave permission for the two existing uranium mines to enter into production. It did not approve the establishment of any other mines. Whether governments ought to make those sorts of decisions is ultimately, I believe, a moral or philosophical question. It is not without precedent in Australia for governments of Liberal persuasion, certainly-and probably, although I cannot think off the top of my head, governments of Labor persuasion-to do so. Senator COLSTON —I direct a question to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister representing the Minister for Territories and Local Government. Is the Minister aware that there is considerable and increasing demand from community groups for accommodation and that even now much of this demand cannot be met? Will the Government's community employment program, whilst providing desperately needed jobs to relieve the shocking level of unemployment which the Hawke Government inherited on taking office, be likely to increase the demand for space by community groups benefiting from the program? Can the Minister advise the Senate whether his Department, and also the Department of Territories and Local Government, whose Minister he represents, have taken any action to meet this demand for accommodation by community groups and, if so, what action has been taken? Senator GIETZELT —The Government has a clear commitment to the principle of working in conjunction with community-based organisations. There are a considerable number of Commonwealth-owned buildings which have become surplus for a variety of reasons and the Government is of the view that those buildings, properties and assets should be used by approved community organisations. The Commonwealth is firmly of the view that, where such buildings are available or surplus to immediate requirements, they should not be allowed to lie empty but rather should be made available to meet an increasing demand by community-based organisations. I am advised that the Department of Territories and Local Government has to date provided 143 community groups with accommodation in 104 separate Commonwealth-owned locations which were previously either temporarily or permanently unused. A number of other locations are being examined by the Minister and by the Department to determine whether they too may be made available for such purposes. Those currently include the Griffin Centre and the Hackett Primary School. I understand further that the Mort Street vehicle testing station has recently been allocated to a community arts group. Senator Colston also asked me a question in relation to my own Department. I recently took the initiative, in consultation with the State Government, to make available to a community-based high school two empty buildings which were no longer needed by the Department within the grounds of the Rozelle Hospital, which is a State Government instrumentality. This school, which is providing facilities for certain disadvantaged children who are not provided for in the State public schools system, conducts classes on the basis of genuine progressive educational policies, although it has not yet been accepted as part of the State education system. That school, known as Wawina, has taken possession of those premises. I think a principle that ought to be followed by all governments is that public assets and facilities should be available to community-based organisations if they are surplus to the requirements of the State or the Commonwealth. I assure the honourable senator that the Government will continue to monitor all Commonwealth buildings to ensure that space is fully utilised, and that, when it is not being utilised by the Government, it is made available to community-based organisations. Senator BUTTON —Yesterday at Question Time Senator Colston asked me a question relating to Commonwealth public servants who are members of the armed services and whether they are granted leave to attend full time training. I am now in a position to provide Senator Colston with an answer to that question. Commonwealth public servants who are members of the Navy, Air Force or Army Reserve are granted leave to attend periods of compulsory full time training. Maximum periods of paid leave which may be granted in a year are as follows, and it is noted that these periods include weekends: Navy, 28 days; Air Force, 32 days; and Army, 34 days. The effect will be that for certain periods of compulsory training Commonwealth public servants would collect pay for their reserve training and would not have their normal salary reduced. Senator GARETH EVANS —On 31 May I responded to a question from Senator Missen concerning the Australian Government's responsibility to its citizens abroad and in particular to those Australians who come into conflict with the laws of another country. Senator Missen's interest in this matter is well known as he has been consistent in seeking clarification about the Government's position in these matters. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has communicated to me that he is a little concerned that from our exchange the impression may have been left that Senator Missen's previous inquiries on these matters have gone unanswered. That is not the case. A letter dated 20 April 1982 was sent to the then Foreign Minister by Mr G. Harris, the secretary to the Government members law and government committee, of which Senator Missen was a member. A response was provided by the previous Government in September 1982. I take the opportunity now to table these documents. As I explained in my reply on 31 May, Australian consular officers do their utmost to ensure that their fellow Australians are not discriminated against in their dealings with the laws and judicial processes of another country, but there are limitations to such assistance set both by international law and practice and by the need to be cautious about interfering in the legal processes of another sovereign state. Such interference could result in the opposite effect to that sought. Sentor RYAN-Yesterday Senator Missen asked a question in several parts concerning the Government's intention with regard to the declaration of the marine park region of the Great Barrier Reef. As the reply I have secured for him is a lengthy one I seek leave of the Senate to have it incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The answer read as follows- I draw the Minister's attention to a commitment made by the A.L.P. during the recent Federal election campaign that ''if it attained office, it would immediately declare the entire Great Barrier Reef region as marine park below water mark in the Queensland coast''. In the light of this firm commitment, I ask the Minister: Firstly-Why has the Government not taken the necessary steps to declare a marine park over the entire area if it has legal control, i.e. from low water mark along the coastline to the outer edge of the region? Response-When the Government took office in March only 14 per cent of the Great Barrier Reef region was included in the marine park. On 31 August 1983 the proclamation of three further sections of the marine park increased this to 80 per cent or approximately 280,000 sq kms of the region in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. This was achieved through the inclusion of the far nothern area and offshore parts of the central and southern areas of the region in the marine park to add to the previously declared Capricornia, Cairns and Cormorant Pass sections. In May this year the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment took the necesssary action to declare the balance of the region this year by directing the authority to provide him with reports covering the area of the Great Barrier Reef region south of the Cairns section which was not already the subject of a report. He has received these reports and I understand consideration of these reports will be a major priority on his return from overseas. Secondly-What negotiations have taken place between the Federal Government and the Queensland Government on the important matter of park boundaries? Response-At the Great Barrier Reef ministerial council meeting on 3 June attended by the Queensland Premier and the Queensland Minister for Tourism, National Parks, Sport and the Arts, the Council endorsed the reports of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority in respect of the far north, offshore central and offshore southern section of the marine park. Furthermore, one of the two part-time members of the authority is a Queensland nominee. Thirdly-When will action be taken by the Government to declare the marine park over the entire Great Barrier Reef region right to the low water mark so as to ensure that the world's largest system of coral reefs is afforded every protection at an early date. Response-It is the Government's intention to have the entire Great Barrier Reef included in the marine park within a very short time. It is also the Government' s policy that the marine park should extend to the western boundary of the Great Barrier Reef region on the Queensland mainland coast where necessary to protect areas of ecological significance. Accordingly it is likely that almost 99 per cent of the region will be included in the marine park. Clearly the use of the low water mark as a boundary for the entire length of the Queensland mainland would place unnecessary restrictions on Queensland local authorities and would also unnecessarily involve a Commonwealth agency-the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority-in minor administrative matters which would divert the Authority from its principal task of the care and development of the marine park. It is not our intention that the Authority should become involved in minor administrative activities including supervision of coastal structures, such as jetties and minor waste discharges, which are appropriately at present the responsibility of State and local government authorities, and which are not likely to be of direct or significant relevance to conservation of the Great Barrier Reef. There are other activities, such as the extraction of sand or gravel from below low water mark close to the shore. The total prohibition of which may not be warranted on ecological grounds. Common sense dictates that this would be an excessive Commonwealth Government restriction on normal State activities. This Government is seeking to avoid unnecessarily interfering in the responsiblities of the State and local government authorities. However, to dispel any fears that oil drilling could occur in those parts of the region not yet included in the marine park, regulations were made to take effect from 1 September 1983 prohibiting oil drilling in those areas. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act prohibits oil drilling in the marine park. Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia) -by leave-On 12 September this year, in an interview for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's AM program to be broadcast the following morning, I drew attention to the massive advertising and lobbying campaign which the tobacco industry was conducting in Western Australia to endeavour to persuade parliamentarians to vote against the Bill to prevent tobacco advertising in that State. During the interview I referred to the fact that there was no provision in Western Australian law for the sources of political party funds to be revealed and that it was very likely that money would find its way from the tobacco industry into political party campaign funds , either with or without the knowledge of the parliamentarians. Throughout the interview I stressed that no illegal act was implied as there is no law in that State to stop contributions to party funds by organisations or individuals who may benefit from subsequent actions in the Parliament by members of that party. Three days later, on 15 September, I read an article in the West Australian newspaper indicating that certain members of the Legislative Council of the Western Australian Parliament had censured me for my comments on the ABC's program because I had suggested that MLCs would be subjected to pressure or undue influence to oppose the Bill. The article went on to say that 'there had been an inference that big financial contributions might be made to campaign funds'. According to the report, the Leader of the Opposition in the Council, Mr Medcalf, then said that 'Senator Evans had cast a slanderous slur on the name and reputation of all MLCs'. The same newspaper, several days later, reported that 'the West Australian Opposition was in uproar yesterday over a Liberal politician's reported suspicion that the tobacco industry had used inducements to persuade MPs to oppose the Government's anti-tobacco advertising Bill. Dr Tom Dadour shocked fellow MPs when he told Parliament he wondered about overseas trips, jewellery and money for campaign funds'. He named a former MP-whom I will not name, but it is in the quotation-and said 'you can't tell me he wasn't in the hands of receivers'. That quotation was from a Liberal member of parliament, the same party as the Leader who impugned me. I wish to make it clear that I did not cast aspersions on individual members of the Western Australian Parliament. The purpose of my original comments was to draw attention to the odium which surrounds all politicians when there is no law to ensure that the public is informed of donations to political parties made by vested interests at the time when legislation concerning those interests is being debated and voted upon by the Parliament. I reject outright the suggestion that I have cast a slur on the Western Australian Parliament or either of its Houses or its individual members. I have a very high personal esteem for most of them and a respect for their integrity. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —by leave-I move : (1) That, unless otherwise ordered, the Senate meet on Friday, 7 October 1983 and Friday, 21 October 1983 from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. to 4.15 p.m. (2) That the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate have effect at 4.15 p.m. on those days. (3) That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders and unless otherwise ordered, the Senate, on those days, shall proceed with its ordinary business in the following routine: (a) Petitions; (b) Notices of motion; (c) Formal Business-Discovery of Formal Business; (d) Postponement and re-arrangement of business; (e) Motions and orders of the day, or vice versa, as set down on the Notice Paper (Government Business); (f) At 12 noon, questions; (g) Any proposal pursuant to standing order 64 (matter of public importance/ urgency motion); and (h) Further motions and orders of the day, or vice versa, as set down on the Notice Paper (Government Business). This matter has been the subject of some discussion and exchange of correspondence between myself, the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney), the Leader of the Australian Democrats (Senator Chipp) and Senator Harradine. The tone of the correspondence varied between mild and bitter. Senator Chipp —No it did not. It was all mild. Senator BUTTON —I said that I had had correspondence with three people. I think all the issues have been amicably resolved and I would like to thank Senator Chaney and Senator Chipp, and their respective parties, for the arrangements which were ultimately made which, I think, suit the convenience of honourable senators generally. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(3.12) —The Australian Democrats support this motion, Mr President. You will notice that it applies to only two Fridays, those of 7 October and 21 October. I think the Democrats can claim the credit for suggesting this proposition to the Government and to the Opposition. Given the incredibly long schedule of legislation that the Government wants to get through before Christmas, there is no way in the world we could have got through it had we sat only on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. We suggested that we would have been prepared to sit every Friday on the condition that there be half an hour for Question Time, no matters of public importance or urgency motions or anything other than Government Business. The last thing that the Democrats-and I am sure all honourable senators-want is legislation by exhaustion in the last couple of weeks. In particular, we want to avoid what happened in May when the House of Representatives got up two weeks before the Senate when all honourable senators, on this side of the chamber anyway-Liberal and National Party senators, Democrat senators and Senator Harradine-were faced with the prospect: 'If you amend this legislation you will be responsible for bringing back the House of Representatives'. I have said, and Senator Chaney has supported me on this, that we will not cop that one again as we did in May in a spirit of being co-operative. However, we object to the Government agreeing to the Opposition's proposition that MPIs and matters of urgency should be permitted on these days, and that Question Time be of the usual hour's duration. But as I say, because it applies to only two Fridays-the Liberal and the National Party have not been obstructive in any way during the last session or this session-as I understand it, the Government is putting forward this resolution to test how these two Fridays turn out. If there is something extraordinary, of course, it is the Opposition's right to raise a matter of public importance or whatever. Thus if this resolution is accepted and treated by the Senate in the spirit in which it is moved, I am sure it will work out in the best interests of the Senate and honourable senators themselves. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.15) —I had not proposed to speak to the motion because most of the issues have been canvassed before in the Senate. We are sitting extra hours and we do not particularly want to waste the hours now or on Friday, but there are two points I wish to make. First, I am glad that Senator Chipp has taken the credit-I would say the blame- for the extra days of sitting. But the Opposition is dissatisfied with the general sitting arrangements. These changes are taking place in the context of an examination of possible sitting hours and sitting patterns for next year which we hope might produce something which will be more effective and efficient for the Government and, indeed, for the Opposition. That hope has been expressed often before and has usually been disappointed. I think that we should be trying to get a sitting pattern that is more suitable and sitting hours that are more civilised. The other key matter and the point of disagreement between the Opposition and the Australian Democrats is the possibility that the Government should have periods of the parliamentary sitting which are immune or free from private members' normal rights and entitlements. The idea that we should have days of sitting without the opportunity for questioning the Executive Government, the idea that we should have days of sitting on which private members do not have the opportunity to bring forward matters of public importance or motions of urgency is anathema to the Opposition. We believe that the parliamentary institution is not simply the property of the Government. It is the property of the members who are elected to it. We would be very strongly opposed to getting into a practice of having sittings in which the rights of the Opposition and private members as enshrined in the Standing Orders were not available to us. Quite clearly, in the exercise of those rights we would not wish either to disrupt the orderly business of the Parliament. That is never our intention, Mr President. We will, in fact, hope to see the orderly processing of the Government's legislative program, but subjecting it to proper criticism, debate and dissection. That is what we were elected to do and that is what we are paid to do. Question resolved in the affirmative. 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. Primary Industry Bank of Australia Limited-Annual Report 1982-83 pursuant to section 10 of the Primary Industry Bank Act 1977. 2. Australian Industry Development Corporation-Annual Report 1982-83 pursuant to section 37 of the Australian Industry Development Corporation Act 1970. Annual Report 1982-83 Senator COLLARD(Queensland)(3.17) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. In 1977 when primary industry was having many problems, seasonal, price-wise and otherwise, the then Government decided in its wisdom to try to make available money at long terms for people involved in primary industry. Unfortunately at the time-I suppose even now-people seemed to think that there should be cheap money around and that it should be made available to them because of their problems. Unfortunately, as most of us know, there is no such thing as cheap money. But the Primary Industry Bank of Australia Ltd, or PIBA as it has become known, was formed to help the man on the land and those involved in the fishing industry to obtain money with long terms attached to it so that they would be able to service that loan and make their living on the land. At the time the Bank was set up there was a lot of criticism by spokesmen for primary industry as well as a lot of other people, but I think that the success of PIBA since then is in itself an answer to such criticism. It has been used in spite of that criticism by primary industry leaders and producers. I note that the amount of money lent has increased by $130m in the previous year to approximately $560m this year. That is indicative not only of the fact that it has been successful in the past, but also of the fact that the people involved in primary industry-as I say, that includes the fishing industry, although I would like to see it able to use it more than it is currently-are using it; it is indicative of its success and the fact that it is helping the people involved in primary industry pursuits to stay on the land. I think that one thing should be noted. When PIBA was formed some of the money that went into its formation and helped fund the initial loans came from income equalisation deposits which were introduced by the then Government. These had a two fold purpose-that of helping the primary producer balance out the peaks and troughs in his income and that of helping thus with his taxation problems. Putting it another way, the primary producer who was having a good season was, in a roundabout way, helping those who were having bad seasons and needed money. It should be noted that, since those days, the present Government, while not quite abandoning income equalisation deposits, has effectively emasculated them and they are no longer serving the purpose for which they were originally brought in. They are basically, more or less, a savings bank institution. They do not help the farmer with his taxation problems in equalling out his income and thus the money that would be available from that source will be less and less over a period. I congratulate the PIBA Board on its report and on bringing to our notice, in the way in which it has done, the various inventions by notable Australians that have helped primary producers not only in Australia but right around the world. They are indicative of the fact that the primary producer has contributed towards world food supplies in many ways, not only in their basic production but also in the means of production or harvesting. I congratulate them on that little innovation which, I understand, was introduced last year and has continued this year. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(3.21) —I rise to speak on this paper which is without doubt of great interest to the primary producing sectors of the Australian community, but I rise with one particular matter in mind; that is, to draw to the Government's attention the demands that will be made upon this banking institution by grape growers in the years ahead as a result of the introduction of the wine excise in the recent Budget. Last year there was introduced in this place the Auditor-General's efficiency audit in respect of the collection of excise duties and deferred customs duties by the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs. That was presented to the Parliament on 11 March 1982. It has been used by the Treasurer (Mr Keating), in the introduction of the wine excise, as a justification of sorts for the new wine excise. I quote from the Treasurer's statement of 21 September: The purpose of the re-introduction of the excise was to lessen (excise) avoidance possibilities, simplify administration and yield revenue. I cannot think of any more complicated means of administration, which will certainly lead to less revenue, than this excise brought in by the Government. That argument has not only been proposed by the Treasurer but has also been carried forward by the Australian Financial Review. But there are a number of points that also need to be made. The report's allegations are unsubstantiated by any facts. In fact, they are based on the Auditor-General's assumptions about what might or could happen. There have been no allegations-- Senator Walsh —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy President. I must question the relevance of the matter being raised by Senator Messner to the annual report of the Primary Industry Bank of Australia, which is ostensibly the subject under discussion. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I think, Senator Messner, that you should explain how your remarks are relevant. You may proceed. Senator MESSNER —Yes, Mr Deputy President, I shall make that point very clear. Indeed, extra funds will be required by primary producers in the wine growing industry to pay the extra tax, and they will therefore be calling upon funds available from the Primary Industry Bank. Senator Chaney —They will have big cash flow problems. Senator MESSNER —There is no doubt about that. They will have significant cash flow problems. There has been no specific investigation by the Auditor-General of allegations. Even if they were true, the blame rests with the Australian Customs Service for not administering its affairs properly, and the industry as a whole should not be penalised. Two of Australia's major brandy and grape spirit manufacturers, Consolidated Co-operative Winery and Loxton Co-operative Winery, have challenged the Government to substantiate the Auditor-General's claims. We have heard nothing of those. That has been done by way of telex direct to the Government in recent days. Questions have been asked about why this tax is so selective and why it is so discriminatory against independent and individual grape growers. No answer has come to that. This tax will impact heavily on horticultural areas, particularly in my State of South Australia, which are very much under the pressure of grape growing problems. The Government should put up or shut up on this matter. It should put down the names of people who have been avoiding excise under the arrangements by which the Government now seeks to justify the present action. In fact, it fails to do that. If it is so concerned about this matter, why has it not prosecuted people? Why has it not at least sent in inspectors to examine the questions in regard to this matter? We have had no answer from the Government at all. It fails to look at this question. I have a final note on the report. If the Government is to try to use this report to justify its wine excise, it ought to be consistent. It should turn to page 6 of the report, which suggests that the Government ought to do away with the excise duty and replace it with a sales tax as a more efficient means of raising revenue. That brings me right back to the point about relevance which was raised by Senator Walsh. It is that very point: That the excise must be paid before the product is sold, in some cases eight, 10 or 15 years before the cash can be collected. If it were a sales tax on grape spirit, it would be far less drain on the resources of wine growers in my State and throughout the Australian community. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(3.26) —I think that I must reply briefly to Senator Messner's remarks. I note with considerable interest that Senator Messner is advocating a sales tax on wine. It is a proposition that I shall pass on to the Treasurer (Mr Keating). I wanted to make a couple of brief comments, too, about Senator Collard's remarks and the financial link between the Primary Industry Bank of Australia, which is ostensibly the subject of this discussion, and income equalisation deposits. He referred to the purpose of those deposits. The purpose, as envisaged by and recommended by the Industries Assistance Commission back in 1975, was to provide a mechanism so that farmers could stabilise their taxable incomes by depositing money in a trust account in years of high income, and withdrawing that money in years of low income. As such, it was a commendable and worthwhile proposition. But within a year that purpose had been subverted-indeed, turned on its head-by subsequent amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act, as a result of which those farmers who stabilised their income by paying into the trust account in years of high income and securing a deduction from taxable income for those payments, and withdrawing in years of low income, as it was envisaged they would do when the proposal was first raised by the IAC and first enacted by the previous Government, found that after the 1978 Budget those who used IEDs in that way paid more tax than they would have paid had they not used IEDs at all. The IEDs, as they existed under the previous Government for four and a half years, imposed a tax penalty on farmers who used them to stabilise their taxable income and provided an incentive to farmers who destabilised their taxable incomes through the use of income equalisation deposits. That incredible anomaly continued until the Liberal Government was finally removed from office. It was corrected within, I think, three months by the present Government. Debate on motion (by Senator Chaney) adjourned. Annual Report 1982-83 Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(3.29) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I have not actually seen the report of the Australian Industry Development Corporation as it is apparently not available prior to tabling. But one thing is absolutely certain, that is, the report next year will have a sorry tale to tell if the postal strike presently operating in the Australian Capital Territory continues for much longer than the more than three weeks of chaos from which we have already suffered. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Reid, you will have to link your remarks somehow with the report of last year's summary of the Australian Industry Development Corporation. Senator REID —Last year the report was not subject to the effects of a postal strike and the Corporation was able to continue its service to the electors of Australia who are presently cut off from the national capital because mail from the outside is not able to get into Canberra and mail from Canberra is not able to get out of Canberra. Senator Tate —Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I raise the question of relevance and ask for your ruling. I have gone to the trouble of getting hold of a copy of the report. If Senator Reid has not managed to do so and is therefore going to waste the time of the Senate with irrelevant remarks in the half hour given to ordinary back benchers to debate these reports, then I suggest that the Chair ask her to cease her remarks. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Reid, I think you have said enough on the subject of the postal difficulties. I think you should now direct any further remarks to the content of the report. Senator REID —I seek leave to continue my remarks later. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Would you be prepared to withdraw that request? If leave is granted the debate will be adjourned and another senator wishes to speak on this subject. Senator REID —If Senator Tate wishes to speak to the report, I will withdraw. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(3.31) —I do wish to speak to the report of the Australian Industry Development Corporation. It is interesting that no member of the Liberal Party or the National Party has sought to get hold of the annual report in order to comment on it. I did so and I note with interest that although the total of new capital investment in Australia in the year in question, which was 1982-83, fell very sharply, the Corporation provided more finance for industry than in any prior year. It is to be congratulated for doing so and, what is more, for doing so, as Sir Gordon Jackson says in his preliminary remarks in his introduction to the report, in a way which did not ' in any sense reflect a lowering of the Corporation's standards for commercial evaluation of proposals'. He says: Indeed, the effects of the recession have necessitated extra care both in monitoring existing investments and in undertaking new ones. Although I have not had a chance to read every page of that report, I am sure that such a reading would reflect the truth of the statements there made by Sir Gordon Jackson. The Corporation has been greatly assisted by decisions by this Government in the last few weeks. We have moved to widen greatly the powers of the AIDC so that it can invest in any industry, although we have set priorities in relation to manufacturing industry, the provision of services such as tourist facilities, industry reconstruction and the development of new or improved technology industries. We are increasing the authorised capital of the AIDC to $ 150m. We expect the AIDC to play a very significant role in the commercial development of Government sponsored research conducted by bodies such as the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. I think all honourable senators who are aware of the gap between the tremendous inventiveness of Australians and the entrepreneurial skills which are needed to seek out markets and to service them would appreciate this enhanced role for the AIDC. The AIDC has supplied some examples of investments during 1982-83. I am sure that Senator Jack Evans would be pleased to know that Siddons Industries Ltd, Australia's principal manufacturer of hand tools, was assisted in acquiring 66 per cent ownership of Welding Industries of Australia Pty Ltd, a manufacturer of welding machines. This helps to increase the rationalisation in the distribution and marketing in that particular field of hand tools and welding machines which is so desirable if we are to sustain an efficient industry in Australia against very intense competition from overseas. The Corporation has also been involved in the expansion of coal loading facilities from Newcastle to meet a short fall of capacity. Senator Jack Evans, who I know takes a very keen interest in these matters, would know that Bunnings Ltd, a large Western Australian timber company , was assisted through financial advice and loans to acquire Millars (WA) Pty Ltd, a foreign owned company operating in the timber industry. This again supported a very important timber industry rationalisation which should bring long term benefits to Western Australia. The interscan system is well known to honourable senators and to members of the general public. We have committed substantial equity capital to the interscan project in anticipation of its reaching a commercial stage of development this financial year. I could mention also the case of Australian Biomedical Corporation. Indeed, as Sir Gordon Jackson said, according to the Canberra Times report of 17 September: . . . the corporation had made a rather shaky start eight to 10 years ago and had had some difficulties with its role and not very impressive financial results. He went on to say: Given this new encouragement by the Government and the charter and some extra support in financial affairs I am very confident the AIDC will serve the country very well. He spoke of the release of significant funds and the setting of priorities by the Government for its investments. It is as part of the Government's encouragement of the movement of high risk venture capital into new technology industries in particular that one is looking to the AIDC to give support to Sir Frank Espie and those of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences who have indicated to the Government-they have had a response from the Government in recent weeks-the need to provide capital support for new high technology industries in Australia. All in all, it appears at first glance to be an excellent report. I am delighted, of course, that Sir Gordon Jackson, an eminent figure in private enterprise in Australia, has taken the helm of this particular government corporation. This shows the sort of co-operation which can only benefit Australia's development. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(3.36) —I rise to speak very briefly on this report. I will then seek leave to have the debate adjourned as I know that Senator Peter Rae, who is our spokesman in this area and who is away on parliamentary business at the moment, would wish to contribute to it. I am not surprised that a point of order was taken on Senator Margaret Reid when she related the problems of the postal strike, which is afflicting the whole of Canberra, to the Australian Industry Development Corporation. The reason I am not surprised is that the AIDC, being a Government funded body, can afford to see its business stripped away by the results of strikes, whether they be in the post office or elsewhere, without any individual citizen realising that it is in fact the taxpayers' money which is again going down the drain. The fact of the matter is that the business of government in Australia and the whole of the commercial life of Canberra is being grievously affected by the postal strike which is presently taking place. I suspect that most of the electors of Australia would regard the refusal of Senator Tate to permit some comment being made on that by Senator Reid as being a very appropriate use of the Standing Orders. Senator Tate —Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order. It was not my refusal. The Chair refused to allow Senator Reid to continue. I regard that statement as a grave reflection on the Chair. Senator Withers —You took the point of order. Senator Tate —I took the point of order but I did not refuse it. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Tate took a point of order, which I upheld. Senator Chaney, do you wish to continue your remarks? Senator CHANEY —Yes, Mr Deputy President. I do not wish to prolong the debate on that matter. As I say, I would simply leave it to the electors of Australia to determine which is more important-the postal strike or some of the comments made by Senator Tate on the report. I would merely wish to add that we can expect the AIDC to prosper. It can point to immediate and recent prosperity because, of course, this Government has just increased its capital, as it has increased the capital of various other government-run enterprises. There will not be a great deal of prosperity in Australia for much of industry, there will not be much joy for most of the industries that provide employment in Australia, but there will be a fair amount of joy for those industries and those companies which receive capital from this Government-money taken from the taxpayers. It is scarcely surprising that honourable senators opposite should be quite enthusiastic about the prospects of government-owned enterprises as against those which have to rely upon raising money in the market-place. I seek leave to continue my remarks later, and look forward to the resumption of the debate when Senator Rae is back with us. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Report 1982 Motion (by Senator Durack)-by leave-agreed to: That consideration of General Business, order of the day No. 86, report of the Film Censorship Board on Activities for 1982, be made an order of the day pursuant to the provision of sessional order for Thursday, 6 October 1983, when General Business is called on. Senator TATE(Tasmania) —I present the eighth report of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills concerning the Income Tax (International Agreements) Amendment Bill 1983. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator TATE —On behalf of the Committee I lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 10 dated 5 October 1983. Debate resumed from 4 October 1983, on motion by Senator Coates: That the Senate take note of the report. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(3.40) —After discussion with Senator Chaney it was agreed that prior to the debate on this report resuming I should make a statement on behalf of the Government which I now do. The Government considers that the prescribed payments system is a fundamentally sound system. However, it accepts that, in the light of experience , there is a need to refine certain of its administrative aspects so as to reduce paper work burdens on some taxpayers and to facilitate taxpayer compliance with its requirements. To this end, the Government has decided to introduce legislation to amend the income tax law along the lines proposed in the report tabled in the Senate yesterday by the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. In reaching this decision, the Government was satisfied that the changes proposed would not put at risk the anti-evasion objectives of the system. Taxpayers who, as payees, have been granted exemption from source deductions on the grounds of a good compliance record are to be taken out of the system in relation to prescribed payments they receive, provided that an appropriate declaration as to the holding of an exemption certificate is lodged with each payer once a year. For such payees with large numbers of different payers, it is proposed that the Commissioner of Taxation will, on application from a payee, be able to approve special arrangements under which quotation of an exemption certificate number on an invoice or statement would be acceptable as an alternative to the declaration. These changes will result in a very significant reduction in the paper work burdens on the exempt payees concerned and also on the payers with whom they deal. Modifications are to be made to the provisions under which a payee may submit his duly completed part of the monthly deduction form no earlier than seven days before the commencement of the month in which a payment is due. Specifically, the changes to be made in this area are as follows: The seven-day requirement is to be extended so that a payee may lodge a deduction form at any time in the month preceding the month of payment; where a deduction form is properly lodged by a payee, it will remain valid until the month in which payment, or a first instalment of it, is made and where a part payment is made, the payer will be required to generate deduction forms in respect of subsequent instalments; and where a payer gives a payee notice in writing that the payer will produce fully completed deduction forms on a monthly basis, the present requirement that the payee partially complete the form will be deemed to be met if the payee lodges with the payer one completed form to cover all prescribed payments from that payer in a year of income, unless the payee's circumstances change before the end of the particular year in which case a further form will be required to cover payments for the remainder of the year. These modifications will ensure that affected taxpayers can more readily accommodate the requirements of the system into their business operations. The changes to allow payers, at their convenience, to complete both parts of deduction forms will certainly be welcomed by those payers who operate computer based business systems. In addition to the above changes which were recommended by the Senate Committee , a minor amendment will be made to the provisional tax self-assessment provisions to simplify the calculations which a taxpayer who wishes to vary a provisional tax liability on account of prescribed payment income is required to make. The present requirement to identify estimated taxable, that is net, income , being prescribed payments, including such payments from which deductions have been, or will be, made, is to be altered to require the taxpayer to identify gross prescribed payment income from which deductions have been, or will be, made. These amendments clearly evidence the Government's willingness to refine the system to meet valid concerns about its operation. Amending legislation to give effect to these proposals will be introduced as soon as possible. The amendments will have effect from the date the legislation receives royal assent. The requirements of the law as presently enacted will remain in force until that time. I take this opportunity to thank the Senate Committee for its valuable work in preparing the report. The Committee's recommendations are sound and workable. I am particularly pleased that this Committee, comprising representatives of the Liberal Party, the Australian Democrats and the Government, unanimously recommends the regulations for the system be not disallowed. Senator WITHERS(Western Australia)(3.45) —I rise to speak briefly on the report of the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. A number of things ought to be observed about it. Firstly, I think the Government needs to be thanked for such a ready response to the Committee's recommendations. After all, the report was put down only yesterday. The Government has responded to it today and has not only picked up the recommendations of the Committee but also added to them. I think that ought to go, if not into the Guinness Book of Records, into the next edition of Odgers if and when it is ever printed. That aside, I make a number of brief observations. Firstly, it needs to be remembered by everybody that these amendments most probably would not have come about if the Opposition had not, some weeks back, first contemplated disallowing the regulations and then moved to have them looked at by the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. The Senate ought to be thanked also for allowing the Committee to meet on sitting days. Under the chairmanship of Senator Coates the Committee worked well and fast. What came out very quickly was the problems we have with all tax laws in Australia. The Australian Taxation Office generally has a game law mentality and always goes for the overkill. It is quite obvious that all taxation laws in Australia are totally designed for the convenience of the Taxation Office and nobody gives a damn about the individual taxpayer who must put up with the administration of the Taxation Office. The whole system was designed to suit the convenience of the Taxation Office. Nobody cared overmuch about the convenience of the taxpayer. That is an unfortunate attitude that has crept into this Parliament, in all parties, for far too long. We tend to forget that our constituents basically are the taxpayers of Australia. When we look at tax legislation in the future I trust that Parliament will cast a harsher eye over whether it is merely for the convenience of the Taxation Office to collect what has become almost sacred revenue and consider how much we will inconvenience our constituents who are the taxpayers. It became very evident within the inquiry that taxpayers were being unduly inconvenienced with paperwork. One could perhaps be slightly cynical and say that one of the reasons for such an immediate response to our report was that the Government is sensitive about the fact that this particular tax has an enormous capacity to enrage taxpayers who will take out their rage and anger through the ballot box at the next election. There are some other matters within the report to which I allude. One, of course, is the rulings of the Commissioner of Taxation. I realise that those rulings are but internal administrative arrangements which have now been exposed to vulgar public gaze due to the Freedom of Information Act but I am still somewhat surprised that the Commissioner believes he can interpret the law contrary to most legal opinion in Australia. I think it is a dangerous trend amongst administrators of the law that they believe they can put interpretations on an Act of Parliament which suit the administration of the law rather than make certain that the law is properly and thoroughly complied with. I think it is a dangerous trait in administrators and it ought to be stamped out by Parliament. The Income Tax Assessment Amendment Act, as the Committee's work has discovered , is a very interesting illustration of the fact that whilst people may occasionally fulminate about legislation in this place, very little true scrutiny is given to its contents. Those honourable senators who for years have put forward the proposition that all legislation ought to be referred automatically to Senate standing committees for thorough investigation and report before passing the Committee stage will take comfort from the fact that the Act slipped through Parliament with none of these things being discovered by the legislators. This Act stands as a monument to the indifference which allows legislation to slip through Parliament. While we are arguing about all sorts of other things we do not bend our minds to what we are properly elected to the Senate to do in the first place. The last thing I should like to say is that I now regret, as a result of some of the things said this afternoon, that we did not keep the Committee going and press to see how much the present mail strike in Canberra has delayed the receipt of all these payments. One wonders how many people have applied for tax file numbers and have not been able to get them in Canberra due to the fact that they cannot get them through the mail. One wonders how much the mail strike is affecting the Commissioner of Taxation's revenue collections. One wonders whether there is bogged down in the mail house some hundreds of millions of dollars and whether or not the postal union involved should not have to pay interest on it because the Commissioner has not been able to receive that sacred revenue into his coffers. It is just as bad, I suggest, as people indulging in evasion and avoidance schemes to deprive the Commissioner of revenue. We all believe that is wrong, but there seems to be nothing wrong with industrial disputes holding up the gathering and collection of that revenue. Maybe it is high time the taxation legislation was amended to provide that, where the Commissioner is deprived of his revenue arriving on the proper date due to industrial action, then he ought to be able to assess on all the members of that industrial group a penalty equivalent to 10 per cent of the taxation he has not received. I think this would be a very interesting way of curing a lot of industrial disputes. Senator Jack Evans —You would include the employers as well; both sides? Senator WITHERS —Yes, whoever causes the industrial dispute. They ought to be paying the tax. I do not see why the taxpayers should be hammered for not paying their tax on time when on occasions through industrial disputation the Commissioner does not get his tax on time. I know a number of members of the Committee wish to speak on this, so I will conclude my remarks by saying again that we ought to be far more careful in this place about passing legislation which turns out to be an administrative nightmare for our constituent taxpayers. It is a very good lesson for us all. I think the operation of this Committee was a very good example of how a committee can operate under some pressure and get back to report to the Senate in quick time. I must congratulate the Government on acceding to the recommendations of the Committee. We look forward to the legislation coming at the earliest possible time, but I still ask those taxpayers outside, those 350,000 people ranging from Croatian bricklayers to ethnic truck drivers and all the rest of them, each time they fill in one of these forms to remember that it was Prime Minister Hawke who brought in this legislation. Every time they fill in a form, they should remember to keep him in mind when next they go to vote. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria)(3.54) —It is obvious that Senator Withers has linked this taxation report by the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations with the mail strike because he has not yet got his tax refund cheque and is somewhat needled by that. I also suggest, in relation to his plea to the 350,000 people, that they can be equally assured that the Liberal Government would have introduced similar legislation with similar provisions. Senator Townley —What rubbish! Senator ROBERT RAY —It had already announced it in Press releases, if the honourable senator would care to go back and have a look at it. I do agree with Senator Withers that the inquiry was a valuable exercise. It is surprising that a Senate committee can have a matter referred to it for the most crass and politically opportunistic reasons and yet eventually come out at the other end with a fairly objective report, a well balanced report, and a report that actually goes to the issues rather than the rhetoric. That is what this report has done, thanks to the co-operation of all members of the Committee. It addresses the problems rather than trying to capitalise politically on one point or another. I must say that the information the Committee obtained from the Australian Taxation Office went a long way to relieving the anxieties of the various industry groups. Much of the information that came out at the Committee hearings was new and went a long way to saying to those industry groups that some of the problems they imagine they have are just non-existent. In general, submissions made to the Committee by industry were made not on the basis that they opposed the withholding tax, or the deduction at source tax, but on the basis that they believed there were administrative problems. It was always hard to work out whether they were using the Trojan horse method and using the administrative difficulties to express their objection to the tax. On the whole, for the record and under oath, the industry groups said that they supported this tax. As indicated earlier, overall the prescribed payments at source taxation will affect some 350,000 people in Australia. I think we should go back to look at why it was necessary to introduce it in the first place. One has to put that in the context of some of the problems that have occurred. The reason, as stated by the Australian Taxation Office, relates to the compliance rate. The compliance rate, in dollar terms, is such that only $55 out of every $100 that should be paid in tax is being paid. It is estimated that, with this new withholding tax coming into operation, compliance will go into the high eighties. We will never get all of it but at least we will move from $55 into the high eighties. I do not think any government, Liberal or Labor, could have just stood aside and allowed the existing system to continue. There are already indications that this system is working. We need go no further for evidence of that than the number of people who have applied for a tax file number, notwithstanding postal strikes or anything else. Normally 10 per cent is deducted, but if a person does not have a tax file number 25 per cent is deducted, a fairly large whack. In the period for which we have evidence , September 1 to 19, in Sydney alone there were 4,681 applications for new file numbers, and Australia-wide the figure was 16,355. Of those, at least 25 per cent have not lodged income tax returns. I think it has been a fairly effective way of forcing people into paying the tax that they owe, and no doubt the Government will derive quite a good deal of back tax from it. It is also surprising that a large percentage of people who have applied for a file number have just recently arrived in the country. We can conclude from that only that Air New Zealand had an absolutely bumper month in August, with the number of people who arrived on flight 2 and suddenly had to apply for a file number. We must acknowledge, though, that initially there were administrative problems with the scheme and that many of the letters we received, exhibiting all sorts of frustration, were justified. For a start, insufficient information was available or known by people affected. In spite of the fact that industry groups and the Taxation Office had participated in seminars, and in spite of all their best efforts to disseminate information, only a small percentage of the 350,000- odd people to whom the information should have gone actually understood the scheme. Initially there was some problem, but only very briefly, about the availability of forms. There has always been the problem of administrative costs , but I suggest, respectfully, that the industry should not complain about administrative costs when the compliance rate for paying taxation is so low. It is just part of the burden they carry because of the fact that their industry is not paying its fair share of tax. We also had problems with the compatibility of computer systems. Nearly all those problems were in the process of being ironed out before the Senate Committee was set up. The Taxation Office is not totally insensitive to requests from different industry groups. It may well have been that the pressure of Government and the possibility of a Senate committee did advance its co-operation in terms of implementing this scheme. I think we also have to look now at just how well the Taxation Office has done on this issue. The Committee was set up prior to 1 September, when the scheme was to be implemented, and all sorts of accusations were going around. One accusation was: 'Look, no one will be able to get an exemption certificate or only a few hundred will be able to get them and applications for variation of payment will be just impossible to be made'. But I think we should look at the figures. In the period 12 August to 26 September the Tax Office received 21,598 applications for exemption certificates of which it processed 21,032. It granted certificates to 92.37 per cent of applicants and refused some 7 per cent. As at 26 September, only 129 applications were awaiting further information and a further 566 had not been processed. It is not a bad effort in six weeks to process over 21,000 applications for exemption. The figures for variation certificates are even larger. The Tax Office received 64,001 applications for this purpose in the period 12 August to 26 September. It processed 62,988 applications, 97.48 per cent of which were granted and only 1.9 per cent of which were refused. Only 372 applications are awaiting further information and only 1,013 have not been processed. So in all, some 1,385 applications out of 64,001 have not been dealt with to a point of conclusion. I think that Senator Withers was in some ways critical of the Tax Office and its methods. But one has to acknowledge that the Tax Office has made a magnificent effort to process that many applications in that period. I would like to refer to the conclusions and the recommendations of the report. There is no doubt that the system set up by the Tax Office is administratively too complex and requires too much paper work. I, like Senator Withers, was very pleased to hear the Government respond that it would amend the Act to make it administratively much easier to process applications and to reduce the amount of paper work. I am sure that that will have the required effect. I am sure that this method of collecting tax will add to the general amount of money being collected by governments and lessen the burden on other sections of society. There is no excuse for some industries to have a compliance rate of $55 in every $100 when the pay as you earn taxpayer has a compliance rate of $100 out of $100 . Senator JACK EVANS(Western Australia)(4.02) —I would like to share in passing around the compliments this afternoon. First of all I think that a compliment is due to Her Majesty's Opposition. I think that the Liberal Party of Australia deserves credit for recognising that by having this matter referrred to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations, the legislation could be improved and ameliorated and some of the effects on a lot of industries that were caught up in a sudden blitzkrieg of attacks could be lessened. I also pass on my compliments and congratulations to the Government for literally adopting the report of the Committee and ensuring that the recommendations will be put into legislation in the very near future because the Committee did discover that there were some problems associated with the way in which the new tax was introduced, the way in which it was implemented and the way in which it was being administered. I also would like to express my personal appreciation to the members of the Committee, to Senator Coates, the Chairman of the Committee and to Senator Robert Ray, the Deputy Chairman during the short absence of Senator Coates, for the way in which the inquiry was conducted. The inquiry may not have been unique , but I have not heard of an inquiry at which a Commissioner of Taxation has been given the opportunity to have dialogue with those who were most concerned and most upset with the situation which had developed as a result of the introduction of a tax. I think that the almost direct dialogue that took place during the inquiry, the give and take and a little of the parry and thrust which we witnessed were good in that some of the concern was lessened when assurances were given by the Comissioner and his senior officers. This approach also cleared the lines and enlightened many representatives of industry groups who had misconceptions about the Income Tax Regulations (Amendment) Bill 1983 and its likely impact on their industries. Of course, much of that concern was brought about by rather poor communications I suspect on the part of the Government but in the main on the part of those people who were out to make mischief by misrepresenting both the intent and the effects of the Bill. The Australian Democrats support the thrust of this report. We believe that the Government's attitude in adopting interim measures while the Commitee was sitting was a helpful approach to a lot of people who were in potential difficulties. For instance, it was not known whether a proposal put by the Australian Democrats, and I am sure by others, for provisional exemptions would bring relief to a few, a few hundred or a few thousand taxpayers. But in the event, 24,500 potential taxpayers took relief from those provisional exemption arrangements. I am sure that this took a lot of steam out of the matter as far as the administration in the Australian Taxation Office was concerned because it allowed this legislation to settle down a little more easily and a little more smoothly. I must confess that I still have some reservations and I do not in any way deviate from my 100 per cent support of the report itself. My reservations relate to the potential, prospective difficulties which have not yet been taken on board. I think that the Taxation Commissioner has lessened the impact on some companies by arranging for some assistance to make the system more computer compatible. But I believe that a tremendous amount of additional work needs to be done in this area. Hopefully this work will be carried out before the next review of this tax is undertaken by the Finance and Government Operations Committee. I am pleased that there is to be a further review because I sense that even now and even following the Government's agreement to make alterations to the legislation there will be difficulties. Those difficulties have been brought to my attention not so much by industry group representatives but by individual companies with individual problems which are not large enough to be taken up by industry groups but which are important to each of those companies. I hope that a great deal of compassion will be shown by the Commissioner of Taxation in helping to resolve and lessen those problems. Certainly, the Government's attitude seems to be that it wants to help those who have had quite serious impositions made on their time, on the cost of running their businesses and in some cases on the viability of their businesses. In my final comment, I would like to put this proposal to the Government: I believe that as the Government makes its decision to expand this tax into other industries, it needs to do more work and needs to ensure that the Taxation Office does more work out in the market-place. I think that the biggest shock I received during the hearings of the Committee was the response from the Taxation Office that although it had conducted a pretty thorough research into its capability to administer this legislation if had done absolutely nothing in terms of the effect that this legislaion would have out in the market-place. I put it to the Government that before it expands this legislation to include other industries-the Government might like to take the suggestion on board for other areas of tax; I will refer later to the sales tax area-and creates havoc in the market-place it should in effect introduce an environmental impact statement. I distinguish between the environment as we nearly always refer to it -that which is out there in the wilderness-and, in this case, the environment which is the market-place, the businesses in this country. That environment was very seriously upset and violated as a result of this legislation. I think that an environmental impact statement of that kind would be beneficial not just to the businesses concerned but to the Government itself and to the confidence of the people in this Government. I ask that such a statement be prepared before the Government goes ahead and bulldozes legislation of this type out into the world at large, without having any idea of its potential impact. With those few words of, I hope, helpful advice I close by again complimenting the Government on its rapid response. I hope that it is able, as a result of the new legislation, to overcome the difficulties that were inherent in the original legislation. Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE(Victoria)(4.11) —I wish to add a few brief comments to those of the other members of the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations who have spoken this afternoon. I was interested to see the Government's response to the recommendations in the Committee's report. I think it will be agreed that their implementation will improve what is a complex administrative procedure. I hope that the amending legislation will come forward quickly from the Government so that it may have an early passage and improve the existing legislation as soon as possible. I noted further that the Government had accepted an amendment with regard to provisional tax self-assessment. Again, I think this will be an improvement for those who are affected by the legislation. It was of interest to hear the figures cited by Senator Robert Ray with regard to the number of exemptions that have been granted and the number of variation certificates that have been approved. I felt at the time of the Committee's hearing that the exemption certificates were made more difficult to obtain by the form that is required to be completed before a person can be considered for an exemption. It seems to me that the compliance that is required by the Commissioner of Taxation under the legislation in providing information on the sources and application of funds has deterred some people from applying for an exemption certificate. It may be that, after experiencing the system, they will be led to provide the additional information which the Commissioner requires. It is of some interest to me that the information that is required by the Commissioner to grant an exemption certificate is information that goes beyond what is required to be provided by a taxpayer when lodging his income tax return . I think that the degree of information that is required and the manner sometimes of collecting that information in time to apply for an exemption certificate have been somewhat of a deterrent, to the extent that some 21,000 exemption certificates only have been approved and, in addition, 64,000-odd variation certificates have been dealt with. Something over 300,000 people are to be affected by this legislation. That figure perhaps puts into perspective the number of people who are still dealing in absolute terms with the provisions and with the administration that is required within their own organisations and by the Australian Taxation Office to collect this withholding tax. The Deputy Commissioner of Taxation in his letter of 15 September made suggestions that were of considerable interest to the Committee. The Committee was interested to read and to hear from him that he believed, as an administrator, that the system was basically sound. The Committee was also influenced when he told us that there had been a marked decline in the number of inquiries that he was receiving at that time. I think that the number of earlier inquiries had led many of us to think that there must be some grave difficulty besetting people who were to be affected by it. I think that the establishment of the Senate Committee gave an opportunity to those national organisations and, if they wished, individuals to come before the Committee to put their points of view. That opportunity was taken advantage of by many national organisations. As has been said earlier, access to the Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner and the senior officers of the Taxation Office meant that information was able to be provided at that time. As a Senate committee, we did look at the statutory rules , but we found that the detail within the Income Tax Assessment Act meant that alterations were required to the Act. The Government will need to introduce legislation to deal with the recommendations in the Senate Committee report. I add my thanks to the staff of the Committee who assisted us, the Chairman and other members of the Committee. I thank also those officers from the Taxation Office and those individuals and representatives of organisations from outside who put before us the information that was required to lead to the recommendations that were agreed to by the Government. It dealt quickly with the Senate report. I think that the exercise that was embarked upon, with the requirement by the Senate to report in the first week of October, was one that imposed some strain on our Committee staff and on others who needed to deal with the Committee's work. I think it is important to know that perhaps next September there will be an opportunity for another report to be presented by this Committee if at that time any information needs to be brought before the Government or if people who are affected by the legislation need to advise us, by way of either a public or a private hearing, of matters that they feel ought to be raised after the introduction of a new tax collection system. Undoubtedly people will need to become accustomed to something that is new. The system will need to be administered by the Taxation Office and dealt with by companies and individuals. I hope that when we reach September of next year the Committee will be able to report that the work that it has done, which has resulted in these recommendations, has simplified the administration of the system and that perhaps by that time the system itself will not need a further series of recommendations from the Senate Standing Committee. Senator COATES(Tasmania)(4.18) —in reply-I wish to thank those who have contributed to this debate. I add my thanks to the Cabinet for its prompt decision this morning to adopt the recommendations contained in the report of the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. In so doing, I point out that the Government all along had said that it would keep an eye on the implementation of the scheme and would react, as necessary, to problems which arose. It is not a question of the Government caving in, but rather a question of its complying with its original commitment. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 14 September 1983, on motion by Senator McIntosh: That the Senate take note of the paper. Upon which Senator Scott had moved by way of amendment: Add to the motion that the Senate take note of the report the following words: And expresses its agreement with the recommendations of the dissenting report. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(4.19) —When this subject last arose I had barely started my comments when the debate was adjourned, so I will briefly recapitulate the points I made on that occasion. Regardless of the views of any parliamentary committee, certain salient facts remain concerning the situation in East Timor, and they will remain facts regardless of all attempts to deny or conceal them. It is for this reason that community uneasiness about East Timor continues to grow in Australia. In fact, I would put it more strongly; I would say that community concern about Australian betrayal of East Timor continues to become a major issue in Australia. It is for that reason that those of us in this Parliament who have taken the trouble to study the East Timor issue with some care will not accept any attempt to smother the issue. It is not good enough that the entire population of a small neighbouring country should be given over to the untender mercies of one of its larger neighbours, which in this case is Indonesia. It is not good enough that between 100,000 and 200,000 Timorese have died as a result of the eight-year unsuccessful campaign by the Indonesian generals to force their act of conquest on the East Timorese. I deliberately said the Indonesian generals because I believe it is not the people and not the Government of Indonesia which have been responsible for this situation but a small number of extremist elements who seem to have undue influence over the Indonesian Government from time to time and who instigated the East Timor adventure in 1975. Of course, the basic salient fact is that Indonesia did not have, does not have and never will have any ethnic, historic or cultural right to East Timor. As in the parallel case of Papua New Guinea, western sections of Timor were once part of the former Dutch East Indies, and the Indonesian Government had a claim to these as a successor state. But the move into East Timor, the eastern part of the island, was a naked act of aggression designed solely to annex the territory of a people who should be independent or who at least should be given the chance to decide their own future by an open internationally supervised democratic act. The parallel with Papua New Guinea is a significant one. If Indonesia thought it did not like the political complexion of a new government in Papua New Guinea at some future time, or even thought a government might emerge which it might not like, the military adventurists-that group of generals , mostly of Javanese origin-could well feel it worth while moving to annex Papua New Guinea if and when they thought the opportunity arose and the time was ripe. Appeasement by Australia and acceptance of the East Timor conquest must surely make this all the more likely. Our reasonable and prudent response ought to be to make it quite clear to Indonesia that, while she is a friend, she is a friend of whose activities in East Timor we cannot approve. It is worth noting, without giving undue accent to it, that the fifteenth century pre-colonial Javanese empire of Majapahit was believed by many Indonesians to include Papua New Guinea. When Sukarno discussed a future Indonesian state with the Japanese in the closing week of World War II, the Indonesian nationalists considered that the new Indonesian republic should include what was then believed to be the territory of Majapahit, and that included the territory of Papua New Guinea. Majapahit is still regarded by the Javanese as a most important part of their ethos. The mere fact that the only record of it is a poem by a court historian Prapanca which is very vague does not alter the situation that there is that basic motivation that might justify an attack at some time on Papua New Guinea. It appeals especially, of course, to the Javanese generals who we know to be so influential. One of those ex-Javanese generals is, of course, now President Suharto. I talked recently with two representatives of Fretilin, Mr Araujo and Mr Rodriguez, who visited Australia and only yesterday with Monsignor Lopez, the former Catholic bishop in East Timor. It is significant that 43 per cent of the Timorese are Catholics. All these people who ought to know what they are talking about are emphatic that the East Timorese not only want to decide their own future but also that the country could have a viable future as an independent state. I believe that to be most important. There are plenty of small Pacific states with fewer resources which are now independent with our blessing. Why not East Timor? Instead of that constructive approach, a fresh assault is being made now by the Indonesian Army against the people of East Timor-not, it was stressed to me by my informants, the Fretilin fighters, but against the men, women and children in the villages of East Timor. The killings and sufferings are continuing. I am told that there is no way that they will stop and that only a final act of genocide could alter that in the end. I have heard honourable senators pontificating at length in this place about the evils of the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. I agree with their feelings about Afghanistan. But the invasion of Afghanistan was a very similar scenario to the Indonesian invasion of East Timor-basically a military conquest of a smaller neighbour. I find it appalling that the same people seem to accept the sufferings of the East Timorese with equanimity and a Judas-like concurrence. As far as I know, Australia owes the Afghans no special debt. But we do have a special debt of honour to the Timorese, many thousands of whom were killed by the Japanese during World War II because they had helped Australian troops to escape from the island. These are the people that we are betraying. Those people who rationalise this situation would perhaps say to me: 'Be realistic; this is the world power game in action; we must not rock the boat. Regrettably it is now the kind of world in which such things happen'. I would like briefly to examine that position. The first point to be made is that we are not helping the people of the nation of Indonesia by our policy of appeasement. We are not helping those who are struggling for a return to democracy. All we are going is helping a small group of military tyrants to maintain their tyranny over a vast nation which does not want them. Why are we doing this? Why does our Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) subscribe to this quite monstrous situation in a small friendly neighbouring country? Is he being heavily persuaded by the United States of America not to rock the boat? That seems to me to be a possible motivation because there is no doubt in my mind that both Australia and the United States gave Indonesia the nod to invade East Timor in 1975. If that is so-if we are being influenced in that way-our attitudes are pitiably and dangerously weak. We have seen three decades in which the propping up by Washington of a series of military tyrants in Asia has seen nation after nation become communist. Those who supported Chiang Kai-shek and Ngo Dinh Diem and who still support tyrants like Marcos in the Philippines have done more to further the advance of communism in Asia than anyone else. Those so-called conservatives are the true friends and allies of the communists. One has only to look back in history to see how successful their efforts have been to deliver large areas of Asia into the hands of communism in the last three decades. That can be laid directly at the door of those people. We should come out plainly-it is time somebody did-and say to the United States: 'We are sick of your hyprocrisy. You pretend to be one of the world's leading democracies and then you meddle around the world to establish and perpetuate a series of military tyrannies which are imposing and maintaining their rule through one of the most sickening inventories of murder and torture of innocent people the world has seen since Hitler.' That is the truth of the matter. There are now few places in Latin America and Asia-the United States zone of influence one might say-where any genuine spark of democracy remains. There is virtual tyranny everywhere. Of course, these regimes are actively supported, financed and provided with arms by that most sinister of organisations in the United States, the Central Intelligence Agency, which hides some preposterous illegal activities behind a veil of secrecy in the so-called interests of security. This is something we can and do accept too easily. The fact is that the CIA's record is not one of any kind of success in establishing the influence of and preservation of democracy in the world but one of a repeated series of failures. Such oppression and secret crime never work in the long run. East Timor is our neighbour to whom we owe a debt of conscience in many respects. It is the right place for us to start. We must continue to use all the diplomatic means at our disposal to see that a genuine act of self determination occurs as soon as possible in East Timor. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(4.28) —I want to take the opportunity to speak for a few minutes on the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on the Human Rights and Conditions of the People of East Timor. It is one of two reports on East Timor which are currently being discussed by the Senate. I think both reports contain a great deal of value for the Senate and for the people of Australia because they increase our knowledge of the situation . Because there have been minority reports in both cases, there has been a tendency to indicate that one must favour one and not the other. But it seems to me that there are useful determinations in the recommendations of both committees. The report particularly before us today follows a long examination by the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. It is appropriate that that Committee should have considered the situation in East Timor because it has undoubtedly been a running sore in this country for many years. I can at least say that I have consistently taken great interest in and had great concern for the people in East Timor and the people from Timor who have come to Australia and want to resume associations with their families who have been delayed for many years in Timor. I am pleased to see that most of those people have now come here and been reconciled with their families. I trust that I am being realistic about this subject when I say that I recognise the great difficulties which occured after Timor was taken over by force, and of course without any right in law, by Indonesia. I say also that in the majority report before us-I hope that many people will read that report- there are interesting statements which acknowledge that there have been considerable developments and improvements in the economic situation in Timor in recent years. On the other hand, there is clearly a great antagonism felt by many people in East Timor to the ruling regime which is maintained there by force. I do not accept that there has ever been anything like an act of determination by the Timorese people to be absorbed into Indonesia. I am not saying that it is probable now that that situation will be reversed. I think it would be unrealistic to think that. But I do not think that that absolves Australia from its obligations. Australia has had long obligations going back to the war period when the Timorese people did a lot to help Australian servicemen who were serving, under great difficulties, in Timor. I believe that we should continue with our obligations to those people. The records of Australian governments since then have not been good. The records of Australian governments, not only in regard to East Timor, but also in regard to West Irian, I think, have been seriously deficient. We may find that these matters may come home to roost in the future. In the time of the Whitlam Government and, I regret to say, in the time of the Fraser Government, there has been a tendency, promoted partially by some elements in the Department of Foreign Affairs to ignore the situation and to think that if we do not talk about Timor it will go away. But something near to half a million people are still suffering in that country. I think we owe them more obligations than we have shown them. The report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Indonesia which recenty visited Timor is very valuable. I noticed that my colleagues on this side in the dissenting report to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence urged that that report be given close consideration. I believe that it should be given close consideration. It has the benefit of being up to date. On the other hand, it has the disadvantage of being a report of a quick journey through East Timor. I must say that, in talking to people who have been to East Timor and in talking, last evening, together with a number of Amnesty International members, with Monsignor da Costa Lopes who was there, of course, for many years and who knows the feelings of the people in East Timor, it is impossible to obtain, very quickly, a view of what they think and it is impossible to avoid the overall presence of the Indonesian troops and Indonesian public servants who are in charge in that country. We know that, since the Australian Parliamentary Delegation went to Timor, there have been remarkable changes. The leader of the Delegation, the Hon. Bill Morrison, M.P., pointed out that the delegation was very impressed with Governor Carrascalao and what he was doing. There was a 'hearts and minds' campaign urging people to overcome their resistance to Indonesia. Since that time there has been a change. Since the Delegation came back from Indonesia, General Benny Murdani, the commander of Indonesia's armed forces in Timor, has threatened to wipe out East Timor's Fretilin independence guerrillas-- Senator Coleman —That is what Senator McIntosh said in his dissenting report was going to happen. Senator MISSEN —That is true. Of course, Mr Morrison placed great reliance, as did other members of the Delegation, on the strength and support of the governor as against the military people in that country. General Murdani, in the Age of 18 August 1983, stated: This time, no more fooling around. We are going to hit them without mercy. That was a threat to clean out the remnants of the Fretilin rebels. I believe that there are more rebels there than other observers have given credit for. Perhaps when the members of our Delegation were there they saw a relatively quite period. It may be that these things have not finished. We know also that Governor Carrascalao has either been removed or, as later reports indicate, army rule has been confirmed in parts of Timor so that certainly his position is considerably under a cloud now. I think there is every reason why we should consider this subject open and keep it very much before our minds. As chairman of the Parliamentary Amnesty Group I believe we owe obligations particularly to prisoners who are still being kept on the island of Atauro and elsewhere in East Timor. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a letter which the Australian section of Amnesty International wrote to Mr W. G. Hayden, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, on 23 September 1983. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL Australian Section23 September 1983Mr W. G. Hayden, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Parliament House, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600 Dear Mr Hayden, The Australian section of Amnesty International urges the Australian Government to take all possible steps to ensure that the humanitarian concerns in East Timor are discussed in the current session of the UN General Assembly. As has been mentioned in the past, Amnesty International takes no position on the question of self-determination as such, its concerns deal with the human rights violations within the organisation's mandate. This approach to you is made after consideration of a number of factors which I list below: (1) Amnesty International has frequently expressed its continuing concern about the human rights situation in East Timor. Attached is a copy of the Amnesty International statement delivered to the UN Special Committee on Decolonization on 2 September 1983. It details the concerns Amnesty International has in East Timor. The evidence is that the human rights of individual East Timorese have been systematically and persistently violated since the Indonesian invasion of 1975 and that these violations have been officially condoned; (2) Amnesty International is concerned at reports of a new Indonesian offensive . As you will be aware, on 16 August 1983 the commander-in-chief of Indonesia's armed forces warned Fretlin that if they continued to ignore his call to surrender ''the Government will use its armed forces and all its arsenal to clean up the remnants of Fretlin rebels.'' Amnesty International is concerned (as stated on page 8 of the attached document) that ''in the past the torture, extrajudicial killing and ' disappearance' of non-combatants has been associated with increased military activity''. (3) Because of the decision to postpone the debate on East Timorese independence, Amnesty International fears that the question of the humanitarian concerns in East Timor may not be discussed at the current session of UNGA; (4) Amnesty International believes it is essential that the United Nations continue to keep the humanitarian situation in East Timor under its consideration in order to guarantee that the human rights of the people of East Timor are protected and safeguarded. With these considerations the Australian section urges your Government to actively seek to ensure that the humanitarian situation is discussed at the 38th session of the United Nations General Assembly. Yours sincerely, Harris van Beek, National Administrator Senator MISSEN —Accompanying that document was also a report by Amnesty International on human rights in relation to East Timor. A document in almost identical terms was incorporated at page 569 of Hansard by Senator Primmer when this matter first came before the Senate on 8 September 1983. I draw the Senate' s attention to that document. There are serious questions. We as Australians have an obligation to ensure that we follow up the human rights situation. I believe we have an obligation to see that Timor remains on the agenda of the United Nations. It should not be removed from that agenda. I fear for the future of the people of Timor if there is no international observation of what is going on. We know that just before the parliamentary delegation went to Timor, a Catholic commission from England was also going to Timor. It was to be accompanied by people who spoke all the languages. It was ready to go and that mission was cancelled by decision of the Indonesian Government. One hopes that more missions go into Timor and that the International Red Cross, which has just been refused entry, will be allowed to go in and see the conditions. We should take up our obligations to ensure that aid goes to the people of East Timor. We can do these things. It will not serve our purpose if we act in any subservient way towards Indonesia. We want to be friendly with that country and we want to help that country. We recognise that it has a somewhat dubious form of democracy at this time. We know it has great human problems and a great deal of economic problems. But it is not serving the purposes of the people of Timor to ignore our obligations. It does not help us, nor does it bring us any respect, even in Indonesian eyes, to lie down and accept anything that is put before us. Therefore, I believe that Australia continues to have an obligation to the Timor people. I hope this report and other reports will continue to give information to the people of Australia and I trust that the Government of this country will not try to put aside, as other governments have, the obligations which we have to these valiant people who live just north of our country. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(4.38) —I rise to speak as one who has some very real, genuine sympathy and, I believe, practical understanding of the Timorese people. It has been my experience to spend some extensive time on the island of Timor at both ends mainly in the then Dutch colony but also extensively in the Portuguese colony. Of course, I came to know, respect and have an affection for the people but, above everything, to understand something of the geography, something of the agricultural potential and something of the formidable nature of the island. I think it is important, for one to understand the situation, first to look at something of the geography. The island is virtually totally mountainous. It is about 300 miles long with the backbone of a gigantic mountain range running through it and, indeed, rising to heights, I think, of almost 10,000 feet if my memory does not fail me. It has very little savannah land or very little plain country. It has small pockets of flat land but precious little land in which Indian maize or corn can be cultivated. It has one of the poorest opportunities for agriculture or animal husbandry of any country in the world and one of the lowest living standards in the world. Without recrimination I can say that, with regard to the eastern end, it is a country which, during the Portuguese occupation, had very little really intensive colonisation of a broader kind, therefore there is virtually very little for the people to lift themselves up and help themselves. Above all, the East Timorese are rugged individualists living in small tribal or clan groups up in the hill country, fiercely loyal to the leaders of their clans, to their kings of their tribes, quarrelling very frequently with each other. In my time there were even head hunters in the country, quite vigorous and in some cases violent people living with great difficulty off the land. That is the background. I also want to give some background on the whole of what was the Netherlands East Indies to give honourable senators an understanding of this problem. I want to give some background on what we now call Indonesia, some 3, 000 islands covering some 2,000 square miles. During the Dutch occupation from the early sixteenth century to the Japanese invasion in Dutch terms it had fairly good colonisation. It was fairly humane but not deeply ingrained in the indigenous people. Yes, the Eurasians played a significant part. Yes, the white Dutch, the Netherlanders as distinct from the Hollanders, built up a structure of organisation, but after that collapsed and the Japanese brought down their military rule there was nothing left. I want there to be some sympathetic understanding of the tasks of the Indonesian regime from then onwards, when it faced a situation in which there was no public service at all. I do not think anyone realises the immensity of a task of taking a huge and diverse country with no public service and constructing it from the grass roots, and in doing it, of course, having very great difficulties indeed. There needs to be more and more understanding. I have an affection for the Indonesian people. I have been privileged to visit most of their main islands. I have been privileged to have some understanding of their cultures and languages. I have lived with them in their kampongs. I hope that the Australian people will draw closer together with the Indonesian people. We must look at what has happened. I remind the Senate of an article in the Quadrant magazine of May 1983 written by a very well respected ex-senator, John Wheeldon, a former Labor Minister. I read one main sentence in which he said: There are even some grounds for believing that if Mr Whitlam had not urged the Indonesians to seize East Timor the whole operation would never have taken place . I repeat that: If he had not urged the Indonesians to seize East Timor it would not have taken place. It weighs heavily upon us that if that is the fact, and a very respected ex-Labor Minister of this chamber wrote it, then it was an Australian Prime Minister who urged the seizure in September-October 1975, a seizure which had from the start never any practical ability for reversal. Senator Robertson —That is not quite fair. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I simply say to Senator Robertson that John Wheeldon was one of the most respected and senior persons of the Australian Labor Party here, recognised by all sides of the chamber as having a profound knowledge of foreign affairs and, indeed, as being a dispassionate observer. That having been said, to my knowledge there has never been an attempt at denial. I repeat his words: There are even some grounds for believing that if Mr Whitlam had not urged the Indonesians to seize East Timor the whole operation would never have taken place . Senator Gareth Evans —That has been constantly denied by Whitlam and successive spokesmen. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Interjections aside, the fact is that that has been said by a respected commentator of the foreign scene and it has never been refuted. This happened at the time of the Whitlam Government and it now is basically irreversible. Nobody has suggested that it can be reversed. My basic plea in this situation is that we should now make sure in everything we do that we give practical aid to East Timor. Above everything, what it needs is a strong health team. It has been very, very short of medical teams. The people suffer very seriously from respiratory and dietary diseases. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Coleman) —Order! The time having expired for consideration of committee reports, I now call on Government Business. Debate resumed. Senator FOREMAN(South Australia)(4.45) —Madam Acting Deputy President, as I was saying before the debate was interrupted earlier today, the reintroduction of the assets test on pensions is a genuine attempt to stop the very wealthy in the community from ripping off the system. It is not a cowardly attack on pensioners , as claimed by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney). As the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) has pointed out, of Australia's two million pensioners, three in every four will not be affected and only 17 per cent will be marginally affected. A single pensioner will lose the pension only if he or she has $104,000 on top of all the exempt assets, and for a married couple the figure is $177,000. I believe it is totally irresponsible for the Opposition to indulge in scaremongering in this way for the purpose of cheap political gain at the expense of the elderly. It has deliberately set out to frighten pensioners in the same way as the former Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, tried to frighten them during the election campaign by urging them to put their money under their beds. This latest bid by the Opposition to exploit the elderly will almost certainly fail, just as Mr Fraser's attempt failed during the election campaign. The fact of the matter is that under the previous Government the standard pension rate declined from 24.5 per cent of average weekly earnings in 1975 to 21.9 per cent in 1982. This is a measure of the previous Government's concern for Australia's senior citizens. The Opposition has the audacity to attack the Hawke Government over its alleged lack of concern when it was directly responsible for plunging 2.8 million Australians into poverty. Under the Fraser Government, one in six Australians were living in poverty, without food, clothing or housing. In a survey conducted in Sydney's western suburbs last year it was revealed that 72 per cent of families went without regular hot meals, milk and meat, and 67 per cent had been forced to appeal to charities for money and clothing at least once during the last year of the Fraser Government. These Opposition white knights on the other side of the chamber are the same people who, when in government, forced hundreds of thousands of Australians on to the dole queues and forced many of our young people on to the streets because of their constant refusal to increase the level of unemployment benefit to under 18-year-olds. That is a measure of the Opposition's real concern for the underprivileged and the needy in the community. I would strongly urge every pensioner living in this country to question seriously the genuineness of the words emanating from the Opposition on the assets test issue. After the Budget in August 1981, Senator Chaney, the then Minister for Social Security, said: 'The Government is concerned that, in the welfare area, as well as taxation, income rigging practices are circumventing the intent of the laws and throwing undue burdens on taxpayers generally.' He was, of course, foreshadowing his Government's moves to introduce a means test on pensions. In October that year it was revealed by the Manager of the Savings Bank of South Australia, Mr P. Simmons, that many pensioners in South Australia had begun keeping large sums of money in their homes because of the Fraser Government's crackdown on pensioners' non-interest bearing accounts. Therefore, given the practice of the previous Government in this area, the current claims of the Opposition in relation to the proposed assets test are nothing more than an act of hypocrisy. I now turn to some other measures contained in this Budget, particularly those in the employment generation area. Unlike the previous regime, we have taken firm and positive action to correct the growing rate of unemployment. Expenditure on employment and training programs for the unemployed has been increased by a massive 110 per cent in this financial year to $733m. Apart, of course, from the $300m allocated to the community employment program, which will provide 70,000 new jobs annually when fully operational, other measures include a 23.5 per cent increase in trade training assistance, a 59 per cent increase in the area of skills training, a 20 per cent increase in funding for work experience training programs for young people, and a 28.6 per cent increase in funding for community based youth programs. In South Australia, where we have had the highest or second highest unemployment rate in Australia for something like three years, the new measures outlined by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) will certainly assist in stopping the unemployment spiral. Although I am concerned about the absence of any special assistance to self-help and support programs for the adult unemployed, especially since many of those projects in South Australia are running into serious financial difficulties, I am advised that the Minister is currently examining the matter. In relation to transport the huge increase in spending of 45 per cent of Federal road programs will create an additional 19,000 jobs. In South Australia our share of the funds allocated is $100m. This could be expected to generate over 1,500 jobs. Like most South Australians of all political persuasions, I would like to see the Darwin to Alice Springs railway given the green light. I find it most disappointing that the Government did not provide the necessary $12m in this financial year to enable substantial progress to be made. The railway is estimated to require about 150,000 tonnes of steel rail and it would be reasonable to expect that this would be produced at the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd steelworks in Whyalla, thereby providing the Iron Triangle region in South Australia, and indeed the steel industry generally, with a much needed boost. The multiplier effects of the construction of the rail link and the benefits to South Australia in respect of freight traffic and employment creation are too great to be ignored. I am therefore looking forward to the outcome of the Government's inquiry into this matter. I turn now to the Government's initiatives in the housing area, which are expected to create another 30,000 jobs. The new package for first home buyers, as announced in the May economic package, together with the massive injection of funds into the public housing area, will provide a tremendous boost to the housing and construction sector, especially given the recent drop in home loan interest rates. Indicative of the Government's concern for those in most need is the increased allocation of funds in the areas of crisis accommodation for families, and mortgage and rent relief assistance. As Chairman of the Joint Standing Committee on Public Works, I am particularly pleased to see that expenditure on public works in 1983-84 will be increased by 16 per cent to $575m. In the highly labour intensive area of repairs and maintenance, spending has been increased by 27 per cent. Works in South Australia will include further upgrading of facilities at the Daw Park Repatriation Hospital, works at the Woodside Army base and the Torrens Island animal quarantine complex. Other projects coming up include the Telecom Australia tower in Adelaide. I am confident of getting the support of the Minister responsible to bring forward consideration of the proposed new Commonwealth offices complex, also in Adelaide. These works will provide a much needed boost to our construction industry in South Australia and should provide hundreds of jobs in the building and related trades. A final point I raise concerns the Government's support of a return to centralised wage fixing. Unfortunately, because of the mess left behind by Liberal governments, both State and Federal, many wage and salary earners have suffered a serious drop in the real level of their incomes over the last 12 months, particularly as a result of increases in various State charges such as gas, water, electricity and government housing rentals. Therefore, I am delighted with the decision handed down by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission last Friday week. Had real wages continued to fall as they have over the last 12 months, we would have run the risk of jeopardising economic recovery especially in the employment creating service industries, as spending in that area would be drastically curtailed. Moreover, any further drop in the level of real wages would cause even more unemployment in the motor vehicle and whitegoods industries as people's decisions to replace cars, washing machines and so on were postponed indefinitely. While I strongly support the return to centralised wage fixation, as I pointed out in the Senate yesterday, I also see the need for moderation so that the benefit of any impending economic recovery can be shared by everyone. Unlike some of the right wing editorial writers in the national media, I believe that a return to an orderly form of centralised wage fixing will assist the measures contained in the Budget in bringing about a renewed burst of economic activity in Australia. I believe this Budget is truly a Budget for recovery. It has been well received by the business community. A public opinion poll published in the Bulletin of 20 September suggested that it is the most popular Budget brought down in the history of Australia. There is obviously a lot more work to be done in many of those areas neglected for so long by the former discredited Fraser Government. I am sure these will be attended to at the earliest opportunity when finances and the overall economic situation permit. As the Treasurer (Mr Keating) said in his Budget Speech, this year's Budget was about a reordering of priorities and giving a fairer deal to ordinary wage and salary earners and the underprivileged in the community. In that regard, I believe this Budget has been a resounding success and that it has set the scene for a sustained economic recovery in Australia. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE(Western Australia)(4.59) —I rise to make some observations on the 1983-84 Federal Budget. Honourable senators opposite are no doubt feeling very pleased, since this is the first Budget since 1975 to be presented to this Parliament by a Labor government. However, I suspect that they are the only people in Australia who are satisfied with its contents. The ordinary Australian will have remembered on Budget night the statement of the present Prime Minister, then the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Hawke, in his election policy speech, when he said: I offer no fistful of dollars to be snatched back after the election. Australians will recall Mr Hawke saying that: Under the Labor Government, increased growth will be restored by- amongst other things- tax reductions for low and middle income earners, widening of opportunities for borrowing by business, farmers and home buyers, and providing support for private sector investment. Yet Labor's very first Budget not only does not attempt to achieve these objectives but actually retreats from them. There were no increases in rates of income tax, and perhaps the Prime Minister believes that we should be grateful for that; but inflation will continue to eat into the taxes and drive more and more Australians into the marginal tax rates. So much for the pre-election promises to 'prevent the erosion of after-tax income by inflation'. More importantly, what the Prime Minister did not promise was increased excises and widening sales taxes on a whole range of items in everyday use. What he did not say was that these increases would be indexed to an inflationary situation which this Government is doing nothing to redress. It has built into its revenue -raising measures a vested interest in inflation, and by its budgetary policies it has built into the Australian economy the guarantee of future inflation. Essential items such as motor spirit have been subject to further rises in the discretionary rate of the excise, from 7.155c a litre to 8.655c a litre, an increase of 1.5c a litre. For a government which claims to be concerned about inflation and the prices which ordinary Australians will pay for virtually everything they buy, this is incomprehensible in itself. An increase in the price of petrol, apart from increasing the cost of private motoring, will also impact on costs of transporting food, clothing and appliances-in fact, almost everything that finds its way into Australian homes. What is more, not content with the additional revenue that will accrue from that measure, the Government then adds another 0.37c a litre to account for the movements in the consumer price index for the March and June quarters of this year. In a Budget brought down on 23 August for the forthcoming financial year, I can see no relevance to the movement in the CPI for the past six months of this year, yet this Government has used this as an excuse to increase excises which were already subject to rises in the discretionary rate, and as an excuse to increase the excise on other items such as beer, cigarettes and certain spirits, for which the discretionary rate would have otherwise been unchanged. Diesel fuel received the same treatment as motor spirit, with increases in the discretionary rate and in the actual rate payable through the effect of the excise indexation. However, in keeping with the inconsistency which is the hallmark of this Budget, the rebate for eligible off-road users in the mining, farming, forestry and fishing industries will not be indexed. That means that as from Budget night those previously exempt from the diesel fuel levy will now pay it, initially at a rate of 1.87c a litre but at an increasing rate as future indexation increases are applied. Primary producers, who have also been affected by the loss of write-off allowances for land clearing and swamp drainage and by the 20 per cent increase in sales taxes on business and industrial users of oils and lubricants, once again have no reason to thank this Labor Government. Farmers who were already reeling from the May economic statement, which will cost farmers in Western Australia alone about $5.7m next year, must now face additional burdens as a result of this Budget. The excises on aviation gasoline and aviation turbine fuel, which were raised by 2c a litre in May by this Government, were increased a further 0.5c a litre in the Budget and a further 4.3 per cent after contemplation and the calculation as a result of the retrospectively applied indexation increase. In effect, that has taken the excise on aviation gasoline, extensively used in the pastoral industry, from 4.555c a litre to 7.358c a litre in a period of three months and will cause an additional cost of $15m to that industry. Those are the actions of a party which in its pre-election statement commented that: No sector of Australian industry is more important than our great primary industries, which still provide 50 per cent of Australia's export income in normal circumstances. I accept completely the sentiments of that statement, yet I must conclude that the Labor Party in government, by reverting to its traditional anti-rural stance , has conveniently forgotten its own empty rhetoric. Primary producers are not the only ones to have suffered at the hands of this Government. In May the Government reintroduced the income test for age and service pensioners aged over 70 years and now the same Government has reintroduced an assets test which will act as a positive disincentive for people to save for their retirements. In the previous session the Senate quite properly rejected a quite diabolical piece of legislation to impose a new retrospective tax on innocent vendor-shareholders. As an instrument of its budgetary policy, the Government has decided to resubmit that legislation, with some modifications , despite which, I am sure, it will be condemned to the same fate. The Government has decided to reduce the incentive to invest in Australian films, to the detriment of the film industry. It has decided to impose a tax on grape spirit, despite its solemn promise that it would not do so, much now to the dissatisfaction of wine producers throughout Australia. The only person who appears satisfied by that decision, apart from the Prime Minister and the Treasurer (Mr Keating), who see that as yet another grab for revenue, is the honourable member for Kingston (Mr Bilney) who, by a remarkable twist of logic, was able to claim on 25 August that he was satisfied that the Labor Party had completely honoured its promise. I am sure that at the first opportunity his electors will pass judgment on that, as will the wine producers of the Swan Valley of Western Australia and in the south-west of Western Australia, who have also recognised this as yet another broken Labor promise. All Australians will also be surprised by the magnitude of the overall Budget deficit, I suspect, especially after the mock horror with which the Prime Minister trumpeted his imagined projected deficit figure for 1983-84. The proof now lies in the Government's own Budget statement-indeed, in the Treasurer's Budget Speech. Total outlays are expected to increase by 15.8 per cent and receipts by only 8.6 per cent in 1983-84. The Budget deficit in Labor's first Budget will almost double, from $4,473m last year to $8,361m in the next financial year. That does not reflect on the Budget policies of the previous Government. It is a testimony to the incompetence of this Government and its commitment to the same old tried, tired and failed public spending policies of other socialist governments, most notably those of France and, to a lesser exent , of Scandinavia. I remind honourable senators opposite of the words of the last Labor Treasurer to bring down a Budget in this Parliament: If Budget outlays . . . were again to grow faster than total spending, a further decline in the private sector share of GDP would ensue. That would mean an accelerated decline in investment and productivity as well as a further contraction in job opportunities. That is a quotation from the past Leader of the Australian Labor Party and a past Treasurer, Mr Bill Hayden. In assessing this Budget, his former economic adviser was reported in the Australian as saying that the Government's Budget strategy was 'manifestly absurd'. Dr Peter McCawley, a former economic adviser to Bill Hayden, has correctly described the Labor Government's plans as absurd. He has said more than that. In a speech to the Australian Graduate School of Management he said: I don't see any reason to expect any drop in unemployment. In fact, I can see it running at 15 per cent and more. On present economic policies, that is what we are facing. Our greatest problem is low growth and we should concentrate on growth to attain price stability and low unemployment. Of course we should. I am quoting a past adviser to Mr Bill Hayden, a past Treasurer of the ALP. The clear expectation which the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) created in the minds of Australian people in his policy speech was that a Labor Government would pursue policies which would be supportive of private enterprise. As the last Labor Treasurer to bring down a Budget made clear in his policy speech in 1975, it is madness for Budget outlays to grow faster than total spending, that is, the gross domestic product. Yet what has happened by this Budget is that the outlays have increased by a record of 31.6 per cent of GDP, which represents a real increase of 7.2 per cent in expenditure. That real rate of spending increase has been excelled in recent times only by the 1974-75 Budget of Dr Cairns, which resulted in a record post-war inflation level of 16.7 per cent and unemployment which more than doubled in one year. That is what the plan for so-called economic reconstruction which has been peddled by the Hawke Government is all about. Its consequences will be disastrous. The Australian Chamber of Commerce has predicted that, as a result of the overall Budget strategy, something little short of a miracle will be necessary to prevent Australia sliding back to double digit inflation. The outcome of inflation of that magnitude will cause a dramatic rise in interest rates, compounded as the Federal Government increasingly moves into the loan market to finance its own deficit which, on its own estimates, will be $8.36 billion or 4. 7 per cent of GDP. Budget deficits in Australia have exceeded that proportion of total national production only once before and that was during the period of the Whitlam Government whose economic policies failed. Capital for the private sector will, of course, become restricted, thus delaying or perhaps even aborting the tentative moves towards economic recovery that have been noticeable since the introduction by the previous Government of a popular wages pause policy. The demonstrated effect of a large increase in the Budget share of GDP is a corresponding decline in company trading surpluses. Between 1973 and 1975 the Budget share of GDP rose from 23.8 per cent to 30 per cent, while profits over the same period declined from 14.5 per cent to 11.7 per cent of GDP. Inevitably that affected the ability of the private sector to expand and, ultimately, even to maintain its existing labour fource. As I said earlier, that prospect has been underlined by one of Labor's own former economic advisers. That is the effect he sees this Budget having on business and employment prospects in the private sector. Dr McCawley has quite rightly pointed out the misplaced priorities of this Budget and, while I do not totally agree with what he says, by and large he is going down the right track. In the same speech to which I have previously referred, he said: Instead of spending money on health, social security and housing, the Government should have injected funds into a more productive infrastructure-such as roads, railways, bridges and harbour building. Once again he has identified a major failing of this Budget. The real increase in health expenditure is 16.1 per cent; in social security 10.5 per cent; in housing 14 per cent-compared with an overall increase in total outlays of 7.2 per cent. By comparison, the real increase in funds to the States, the Northern Territory and to local government, which have had and still have the main responsibility for capital works, has been a mere 2.8 per cent. The hand of union pressure in this area is unmistakable. In this one-sided prices and incomes accord the Labor Party was forced into the position of promising greater spending in these non-productive areas as a price for wage restraint which, as is already clear, will not be forthcoming from the unions. The prices and incomes policy obliges the Labor Government to provide national health insurance which, by the Treasurer's own figures, will cost $680m in the first financial year-of course, that is a bodgy figure; we know we can add $550m on to that-and a staggering $1,800m in the next full year, all wasted on duplicating services already provided in the private sector. That same agreement with the unions has also resulted in significant increases in unemployment benefits and other areas of welfare spending which will reduce the incentive of individuals to work and to provide for themselves. That is amply demonstrated by the Government's attitude to pensions, to which I have already referred briefly. People seeking to make provisions for their own requirements and according to their own capacity to accommodate their needs are penalised by this Government's policies. There is no balance in this Budget between the undeniable need for the community to provide for those disadvantaged by economic circumstances, albeit that they are circumstances which have been exacerbrated by unrealistic union demands for higher wages and shorter hours, and the need to provide incentive for private sector expansion that is our main hope in restoring full employment or something approaching that situation. The Treasurer's own predictions for the year ahead make very gloomy reading, much gloomier reading than the hopes which the Labor Party unrealistically created during the election campaign when promises were cheap. The Treasurer says that real total growth in public sector spending this year will be in the order of 4 1/2 per cent, while private consumption expenditure will be in the order of 1 1/2 per cent. That breaks the basic rule enunciated by, amongst others, a former Labor Treasurer and Leader of the Opposition. The Treasurer predicts a decline in fixed business investment in the coming 12 months. It is an easy prediction to make because with his policies inevitably forcing the Government into the loan market to a greater extent than previously, interest rates of course will again move upwards to deny business the capital it needs to generate employment and to renew productive capacity. His policies towards a greatly expanded Budget deficit make a mockery of the prediction that private dwelling investment will continue to increase notwithstanding temporary aberrations because, like business, investment in that area relies on a stable low interest rate and a stable and declining inflation rate. What is more, for the government that is claiming to be pursuing the dual policies of controlling inflation and unemployment, it is remarkable that the Treasurer's own prediction is that unemployment will not ease this year. Despite the 80 per cent increase in spending for employment and training programs, which represents a massive 52 per cent increase in real terms, the Treasurer is saying that the unemployment situation during the coming period will not ease. What an utter self- condemnation of his priorities and policies that admission represents. I recall the present Prime Minister saying in his policy speech that growth cannot be restored to the economy 'by taking money out of the weekly pay packet or the pensioners' cheque'. More importantly, when Australians recall that promise, they will understand how far this Government has gone off the tracks in just five short months. The combined effect of this Budget and the May mini-Budget has been to impose an additional cost to the average household of $16 a week, a burden on the average Australian family. That is only one of the many hopes and aspirations which the Labor Party has cruelly created in its pre-election statements which has now been torn down once it scrambled its way into office. Labor promised to decrease the price of petrol and it has increased it, not once, but on an ongoing basis. Labor promised to retain the accelerated depreciation allowances. All Australian primary producers know what became of that promise. The Government was able to keep it barely a matter of two months. I do not have time to list all the promises and hopes built up by the Labor Party which have been dashed by this Budget, but no doubt my colleagues will continue to contribute to that list in the time provided to them. However, I notice that the Treasurer has sought to perpetuate the cruellest hoax of all-the promise of employment and training opportunities for 300,000 people a year. They are not permanent jobs; they are illusions that can be maintained only by increased Government spending. Yet, as I have said, to appease the militant unions, with which this Government believes it has some sort of accord, it is money which the Treasurer believes is well spent. It is not well spent. The only real permanent jobs are those created through demand for goods and services by the community and this Budget does nothing to assist that objective. It is clear that it was never an objective which this Government had in mind. I conclude by referring briefly to page 70 of Budget Statement No. 1. I believe it says it all. The section of the Treasury viewpoint entitled 'Further Ahead' warns that financing the deficit will not only force up interest rates as the most likely scenario but also could crowd out any improvement in private sector investment. It warns that the Government appears to have predicated its deficit on the assumption, described as 'comfortless in the reasoning that underlies it' , that public sector borrowing can be accommodated because the private sector will become weaker and weaker and there will be less and less demand. If that turns out not to be true we will have a renewed bout of inflation which will make us even less competitive on world markets or, as Treasury went on to say, we could have rising interest rates which: . . . could act to seriously inhibit, if not choke off, the tendency for recovery in private sector activity. That is the course which the Labor Government has chartered for Australia. In time, if it is not already, the Budget will be seen not as a mild, conciliatory, popular Budget but as a recipe for absolute disaster. It will put out the glimmer of optimism that a recovery is foreseeable and possible. In the end it will force even more people to seek the assistance of the State to survive. As time goes on and events speed up we will see a manifestation of the distortions, the misunderstanding and the incompetence of this Government in designing this Budget. I am sure the economy can go only one way under this Government and that is down. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales)(5.22) —I support the Budget brought down by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) only a few weeks ago. In doing so I think it is important to look at the situation that the Hawke Government inherited from its predecessors. When the Hawke Government came to office it inherited an economy in deep recession, the worst recession in 30 years. Inflation was running at more than double the average for countries of the Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development. Unemployment was nearly three quarters of a million, having increased by 250,000 in just 12 months. There was no comparable increase of that kind in the previous 50 years. Budgetary policy was out of control with a prospective Budget deficit of $9.6 billion. That, of course, was the great deception, the big lie of the election campaign. Everything else paled in comparison with that one big lie. Gross domestic product was also falling at an alarming rate. It dropped by 3.9 per cent in the last financial year. The Fraser Government had totally lost control of economic policy. I am reminded of what Paul Keating, when he was shadow Treasurer, said very early in the campaign. He said that John Howard as Treasurer had been reduced to the role of commentator on Australia's economic affairs. I think it is true to say that not only John Howard but also Malcolm Fraser and, indeed, the whole Government were powerless and immobilised in the face of an economic disaster that had overwhelmed them. The former Government's policies had plunged Australia deeper and deeper into recession-deeper than most comparable countries . Most of those policies were brought about by the sheer electoral opportunism of that government. Even the Valder report concluded that the Fraser Government' s actions had never matched its rhetoric. I commend that report to honourable senators opposite. I hope they can adopt most of its recommendations. I had been confident that the Australian Labor Party could govern for 10 years but if those recommendations are adopted it will make the Menzies era look like a brief interlude. By March 1983 the Australian electorate had had enough. It clearly wanted and needed a new approach to economic policy. The Hawke Government has provided just that. We have rejected the policy of fighting inflation first, the one that never worked. We have embraced a policy of fighting the twin evils of inflation and unemployment simultaneously. Given that honourable senators opposite have been quoting some of Mr Hawke's statements prior to the campaign, I will quote Mr Fraser on the subject of inflation. On 12 September 1978 he said: Inflation at an annual rate of 5 per cent is within our reach by mid-1979. It will go on falling under the policies of this government. Of course, by June 1978 the inflation rate was 8.8 per cent. By mid-1979 when Mr Fraser had promised that it would be 5 per cent it had reached 10.7 per cent, more than double the rate he promised. It kept on rising during the rest of his reign. The new approach we have developed and implemented has been achieved through a spirit of consensus and consultation. That process was begun so startlingly at the National Economic Summit Conference held only a few yards away in the chamber of the House of Representatives. Senator Crichton-Browne —Shame. Senator RICHARDSON —It must be regarded as a shame by Opposition senators that the Prime Minister received a standing ovation from all the participants in that Summit, bar one. Senator Messner —Sycophants. Senator RICHARDSON —It is interesting that Senator Messner would refer to some of Australia's most prominent business people as sycophants. I am sure they would be fascinated to register that comment. In marked contrast to the division and despair so evident in the latter years of the Fraser Government, the Prime Minister and the Ministers of his Government have given Australia, represented in that Summit, something for which to hope. People had had no hope for the previous seven years. The broad guidelines for our Budget were developed during that consultative process. Consultation took place not only with business and unions but also with State governments. There was so much consultation that, despite the protestations of those opposite, the Budget strategy has had general endorsement from all those groups. It has also had endorsement from most of the financial Press for one very good reason-this Budget, in conjunction with the other arms of our economic policy, is the most appropriate for the difficulties we face. By any definition this Budget is expansionary. Its emphasis is on the restoration of economic growth and the creation of jobs. It provides a marked increase in public sector spending while private sector spending remains weak. It provides a marked acceleration in capital works as well as substantially increased welfare payments. It should contribute substantially to real growth over the year. The current predictions on growth, which I think are worth noting by all honourable senators, run to 5 per cent for non-farm GDP and over 6 per cent for total GDP this year. That is in stark contrast to the negative growth of the previous 12 months. The Budget is designed not only to restore growth which is real and which can be sustained, not frittered away by inflation. Several key elements of this expansionary policy were put into place prior to the Budget in the May economic statement to provide an early and much needed stimulus. Significant among those was the housing package designed to lift activity in several depressed areas. The building industry which is, of course, a key to any recovery in this country is already showing signs of benefit from that housing package announced only a few months ago. The community employment program came into being to assist the long term unemployed. Additional funds to the States through tax sharing grants and loan programs are already showing benefits. These policies and the budgetary decisions are designed to provide a floor of activity while the private sector recovers because it is private sector recovery that in the end will provide the answer to our unemployment problems. While private sector activity is at a low ebb the Government accepts the need for a substantial role for the public sector. As I have said, recovery in the private sector is essential if the tentative signs of recovery already so evident are to be sustained. Even when that upturn becomes more firmly entrenched and established, business investment will not be improved until we can see better prospects for that upturn remaining in place over a longer period. What business needs more than anything else is the restoration of economic growth. Traditionally, through the long periods of Liberal Government, business Budgets as they were called were characterised by handouts, concessions and the like. This Budget, on the other hand, while not being characterised as a business Budget in that mould, is a Budget that is good for business. It is a Budget that provides the framework for a private sector recovery, for the restoration of growth, and for that growth to be sustained. I quote the Treasurer, Paul Keating, on Budget night: The key task of our policy therefore is to facilitate a sustained recovery that wears away the unacceptably high levels of unemployment we are now experiencing. The concept of sustained recovery is crucial to our thinking. We are not merely waiting for the American recovery to hit us; its length and durability will always be in question. We are looking for a sustained recovery that will go on irrespective of overseas developments. In reference to business, I might say that this Budget, despite the protestations from those opposite, has been acclaimed in board rooms across the country. It has been acclaimed by union executives; it has been acclaimed by commerce; it has been acclaimed by the financial Press; and, yes-the thing that honourable senators opposite most fear- it has been acclaimed by the people. They have said yes, and that is what the Hawke Government has been about. The beneficial effects of our expansionary policies are already evident. The housing sector is recovering at an encouraging rate both in terms of finance and in terms of actual construction. This should be compared with a decline in dwelling construction last financial year of 25 per cent. Retail sales are on the up and motor vehicle registrations increased by over 18 per cent in August alone. Consumer confidence has increased markedly. A survey done only last week I think, by the Melbourne University Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, suggested that consumer confidence was at its highest for two years. Of more significance is that we have been able to bring down this Budget, with its admittedly attendant financial risks, in a climate of falling interest rates . As the headline in the Australian Financial Review this morning heralded, yesterday interest rates fell again, this time for large borrowers. The prime rate fell for all banks by between one-half and three-quarters of one per cent. I look once again at the performance of the previous Government in regard to interest rates, and I quote Malcolm Fraser on 3 December 1977: A 2 per cent reduction in interest rates in the next 12 months is a target that can and will be achieved. At the end of 1977, new housing loan mortgages were at interest rates of 9.25 per cent to 10.5 per cent and by the end of last year they were at 13.5 per cent . It is only since the Hawke Government has come into office that they have begun to fall. These and earlier falls have occurred while the Government has raised close to $5 billion towards financing the deficit. That $5 billion has been raised in only three months, another sign of the confidence that people have in this Government. Although many favourable signs are emerging, the extent of our economic problems, particularly those we inherited from our predecessors, should not be understated for they are immense. Recovery will take time. While I have often heard Bob Hawke referred to as the messiah, it should be stated that this Government does not offer miracles. The severity of our problems was and still is distinctly greater than that of most other Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development countries. The one area that will take considerable time to show improvement is the area of unemployment. The slump in employment under the Fraser Government, as I have already mentioned, was unprecedented for the post-war period and it will take some time for sustained economic growth to generate jobs. I might say that the Labor Government was elected primarily on the issue of unemployment. It recognises its responsibilities in this area and if it fails over the years to meet the problem of unemployment it will not be elected again, and it will not deserve to be. In the early stages of the upturn that we are now experiencing we will not see a marked decrease in unemployment. One can assume that initially increased productivity will take up most of the upturn rather than increased employment. Already there is evidence that more overtime is being worked; already many firms have returned to working a full week. With growth in our working population-it must be remembered that that is rising all the time-it will take quite a while for the upward trend in unemployment to be reversed. Present predictions already are that more than 130,000 jobs will be created by the end of this financial year. Despite this, because of all the factors I have just mentioned, there could still be a worsening of unemployment during that period. This Government does not back away from that likelihood. In fact, we have tried to provide that floor of activity so that private sector recovery can be sustained and we can have more jobs. If we are to be criticised for our performance on unemployment, then I would like to contrast that performance with Mr Fraser's address to the nation in November 1975, when he said: Unemployment is now estimated to rise to over 400,000 early in the new year. Tens of thousands of school leavers will start life on the dole. Where is the recovery we have been told about? In seven years Mr Fraser failed to provide any sort of recovery. By the end of his reign a further 350,000 people were out of work. In the clear recognition that unemployment will not be reduced significantly in the short term and that there are disadvantaged groups in the community, this Budget has been about increasing assistance to those people. Compassion has been the hallmark of the Cabinet's deliberations on these matters. There has been a substantial re- ordering of our priorities. The principles of fairness and equity have finally been applied to the formation of a Budget in this country. We have focussed aid on the victims of the recession, on those people in expenditure areas who have been so sadly and long neglected by the Fraser Government, our predecessor. Today's unemployed, in particular, are victims of circumstances well beyond their control and, at least in the immediate period, this Government has to set about trying to relieve their plight. The combined measures announced in the May statement and in the Budget will increase the unemployment benefit for a single person by more than 21 per cent, or $14 a week. The married rate will increase by over 16 per cent. More importantly, the rate payable to under 18-year-olds, which had been increased only once in seven years, a truly miserable performance by those opposite, has been increased by $5 a week. That is going to a generation that has been given no hope in the last seven years, a generation that will create many social problems on an enormous scale for our community to meet over the next few decades. The income test has been liberalised, from $10 to $20 a week. These are just some of the short term measures that the Government has introduced to assist the unemployed. In the welfare area, additional assistance has been given to families, to the handicapped, to the aged, and to those who are in poor health. Additional educational expenditure and student assistance has also been provided, but our priorities have been redirected towards the needy. Our priorities are now directed to providing more adequate living standards for those who are unemployed, to ensuring that where benefits must be paid to the needy they are actually received by the needy-a great innovation. This has all been done within a framework of responsible economic management. I would like to mention in regard to that framework of responsible management Medicare, which I note has been mentioned by a number of speakers from the other side during the afternoon. Not only will the Medicare system as announced by the Hawke Government extend these principles of fairness and equity so that a reasonable system of health care is available at a cheap cost to so many people in our community, but also it will bring some sanity to the system. The health care arrangements were changed so many times during the previous seven years, at such great cost, that I believe many people in the community are still confused as to what health care is available to them. I quote from the 1975 election speech of Malcolm Fraser: We will maintain Medibank and ensure that the standard of health services in this country do not decline. In 1975 health cover for a family on average weekly earnings amounted to 1.1 per cent of income. As of last year, the cost had increased to 6 per cent of average weekly earnings. Between July 1975 and June 1982 the cost of basic family health insurance increased by 220 per cent compared to an average weekly earnings increase of less than 100 per cent. Such is the Fraser Government's record in care for the sick. Because of the dismal fiscal inheritance it was not possible simply to add all of our programs such as Medicare on to those of our predecessors. Indeed, $2.5 billion of new expenditure programs had instead been achieved by reducing expenditures of the previous Government where this Government considered them to be of a low priority. The Expenditure Review Committee, which met over only a couple of months, achieved more in those couple of months than the now infamous Lynch razor gang achieved in more than six times that period. This Government showed that it had the political will to match its convictions and those cuts went ahead. More importantly, though, we are now setting about ensuring that those who have not been paying their fair share of the tax bill in Australia begin to do so. That process has started. We are recouping more of the revenue still owed to the people of Australia by those who have indulged in tax avoidance practices. The withholding tax legislation shows our determination to collect tax from those who have been evading it by resorting to the cash economy. The figures already available to us from the Australian Taxation Office show a very early success in that endeavour. Indeed, more than 16,000 new applications were received by 19 September for taxation file numbers. The Taxation Office has estimated that 4, 000 of those were from entities, either individuals, companies or partnerships, which had been in existence but which had previously not been paying tax. That will mean a tremendous amount of new revenue for the Government. By limiting also the potential for avoidance from the conversion of income into capital gains, we will further ensure that the burden is more fairly distributed. On the general question of tax avoidance, while Malcolm Fraser may have said in November 1977 'We will move to close loopholes which permit tax avoidance', the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union in its 1981 interim report said: This industry has developed in Australia, particularly over the last five years -- So the Whitlam Government cannot be blamed-- at a rate far in excess of any other industry and has brought with it profits comparable only to the heady days of the Victorian gold rush . . . The amounts involved are very large indeed, amounting to many hundreds of millions of dollars per year or more. The impact on the community has been very serious. Already the Hawke Labor Government has set about removing those inequities. It is to be hoped that when the tax recoupment legislation comes into the Senate in the very near future this Senate will accept its share of the responsibility and pass that legislation and pass it quickly. I turn to the question of the assets test which has admittedly caused so much heartache and anxiety to many elderly people in our community. Much of what I have said in the previous 20 minutes I hope will show that this Government has acted and will continue to act with the compassion that has characterised it since 5 March. When anomalies are brought before the Government they will be reviewed during the 12 months that it will take before the assets test is introduced and there will be very few pensioners indeed who will need to worry about its introduction. The previous Government and, indeed, Senator Chaney on many occasions were prepared to concede that the incomes test was failing, that there were too many ways around it. The assets test is in the end the only alternative. There is work still to be done on it and this Government has pledged to continue that work. To conclude, this Budget can be seen as providing a substantial macroeconomic stimulus within an acceptable balance of risks. That said, there should be no doubting the magnitude of the task ahead. In attempting a sustainable recovery while inflation remains at double digit figures, this Government is attempting what no industrial economy has yet achieved. The Hawke Government, in extraordinarily difficult circumstances, has in this Budget kept to its major commitments in pursuit of that objective. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(5.42) —In speaking to the 1983-84 Budget Papers I think it is worth noting a Commonwealth Bank report of last week which anticipates that Australia's inflation rate could soon be down to just over 7 per cent. If this comes about our inflation rate will be similar to that of many of our trading partners in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The report went on to say that this forecast is the result of the wage pause which was introduced by the Fraser Government some nine months to 12 months ago. This is all well and good if the governments and the Australian Council of Trade Unions sees fit to support this principle. But will they? We now see the push for increased wages-increased wages for the haves, those people who are now protected in jobs. But the ACTU and the rest of the union system do not seem to concern themselves with those outside the system-the have nots, that group which is steadily growing and which is made up particularly of young people and other unfortunates. The Labor Government forecasts that the time is coming when some 10 per cent and more of the population will be unemployed. It seems to me that the electors have been taken for a ride because a major plank in the Australian Labor Party's platform was to attack unemployment. Last week we saw statements in the national Press that the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, said that jobs are not on for all. The Minister for Science and Technology, Mr Barry Jones, is reported as saying that the working class ' should learn to retire early and see early retirement as a thing to look forward to rather than view it with ''absolute horror''.' They, the workers and certainly myself and no doubt all other senators on this side of the chamber would ask: 'Retire on what?' Where is the nest egg to bring about this to come from? Will it come from an increased number of unemployment benefit payments and from the age pension which is to be means tested? Mr Hawke also said last week that the easy years are over. It was not so long ago that we can remember hearing him jeering at the saying: 'Life wasn't meant to be easy'. To my mind and to those of many people of Australia governments have become pessimists. But is this fair to Australians? I for one do not believe that we have to accept the role of being at the bottom of the barrel. I believe that there is good reason for us to live up to that motto that has been around for the last few years: 'Life. Be in it'. Many things can be done if the militant unions temper their demands. For instance, our goods could be better priced on national and international markets. New projects and industries can be created. One example is the construction of the rail link between Alice Springs and Darwin from which overseas trade alone, not to mention our main industries, must receive a fillip. Another example is the development of Australia's uranium mines, which is often mentioned in the Senate these days. Our vast pastoral and primary industries are ready to blossom again if costs in the areas of freight, fuel and so on can be contained. I believe that the world's markets desperately want Australian produce if they can afford it. Australia and its people can be lucky again if that is what they want. Many honourable senators have spoken in this debate on various aspects of Australia. I am one of the few senators in this place who come from the remoter parts of Australia and as such most of my remarks will be directed to the people who live in that area. Senator Crichton-Browne —Welcome to the club. Senator KILGARIFF —I thank Senator Crichton-Browne. The honourable senator, whom I heard speak just recently, has a vast electorate in the outback to represent and he serves it well. I would like to look at the effects that increased freight charges are having on the Northern Territory. It is interesting to note that some settlements in the Northern Territory are so isolated that they have to depend on freight transport for everything. I am talking about barges that operate along the north coast, transport trucks that have to wend their way hundreds of miles inland, rail and aircraft. It is interesting to note that the Northern Territory Government is holding an inquiry into the cost of freight in the Northern Territory. I understand that the results of that inquiry will be made available to the Northern Territory Government, and no doubt to the Federal Government, in possibly January next year. This inquiry will be of the utmost importance if the problems of the people of the outback are to be recognised and if those people are to be given a fairer go than they are getting now. It is interesting to see some of the facts that have come out of submissions to the inquiry. For example, the shop manager at Angurugu-Angurugu is an Aboriginal settlement on Groote Eylandt-submitted that the shelf price of goods was between 75 per cent and 90 per cent higher than in Cairns or Brisbane. I am referring to a co-operative store on an Aboriginal settlement. No one can say that the margins charged there are high. They are set to cover costs only. The high prices were necessary because of the freight charges. For example, the freight cost for dry groceries is about 30 per cent to 37 per cent of the value of the goods. Fresh fruit and vegetables are flown in weekly from Katherine. The freight costs average 100 per cent of the value of the goods. I am referring to just some of the items which are mentioned in the submission. The shop manager indicated that on comparing his prices with those of Jack the Slasher in Cairns and prices in Brisbane, he found that his shelf prices were, as I said, 75 and 90 per cent higher. He indicated that the freight costs for dry groceries averaged between 30 per cent and 37 per cent. He indicated also that to fly in the vegetables and fruit from Katherine on a weekly basis brings up the cost by something like 100 per cent. This cost is obviously far too high for the people of the outback to have to endure, particularly now that we see the freight costs have been increased in this Government's Budget. The impact of the new excises on fuel contained in the August Budget is only now being fully appreciated. The increase of 1.5c a litre on diesel fuel excise is now being seen as particularly damaging to the tourist industry, an industry which employs many people. Not only is it the fastest growing industry in the Territory but also it promises to be a most important one. As I said, it will employ more people every year. Recently compiled figures show that an average tour service bus travels some 38 ,500 kilometres carrying, on average, 4,054 passengers a year. The increase in the excise will cost each bus just on $500 per annum alone, a cost which the operators must absorb because their tariffs are set a year to 18 months in advance and they are locked into those fares. This further burden, far from encouraging tourism in the outback, will be a positive disincentive. The six- monthly rises in excise will compound the financial burden. The diesel fuel excise also affects remote tourist establishments, increasing their costs by up to $3,000 a year. Perhaps this may not seem very much for operators in the more populated parts of Australia, but they should bear in mind that the pioneers in the outback-they are still pioneers-live in extremely difficult situations. They have to pay higher fuel costs for the production of their own power and so on. They are in a most unenviable situation. This is a special worry because, since last year's Budget, those places have not been eligible for exemption from the diesel fuel excise. Over the last few months the Federal Government has conducted an inquiry into the anomalies of the diesel fuel excise. I found it disappointing that, despite the best efforts of those in the outback and representations made by members on this side of the Senate on behalf of the tourist operators, no relief was given to people in the outback. I still cannot understand the situation. It is in sharp contrast to the Budget decision made in the wake of the review granting a $1m subsidy to Queensland's Great Barrier Reef island tourist resorts to relieve them of some of the financial burdens of the excise. Good luck to them. They have a problem of carrying fuel over water. The decision to give the Queenslanders this subsidy was made ostensibly, as I say, because of the high cost incurred in transporting the diesel over water to the island resorts. Yet territorians, the people of the outback who suffer crippling freight charges in transporting diesel fuel over large areas of land, received nothing. It appears to me that a State election may have had something to do with the situation. Perhaps I am being overcritical. I am most disappointed that the people in the outback have been so ignored. During the last few days we have heard much about the First Home Owners Bill, which provides a grant of $5,000 to many Australian citizens. Senator Button —Seven thousand, Senator. Do not cheat us like that. Senator KILGARIFF —If the figure is $7,000, I stand corrected. I believe that this legislation will be of considerable advantage to people on lower incomes. It will be of particular advantage to the people who live in the more populated areas. As I have said before, people who live in areas which have a higher cost of living, such as the Northern Territory, have to pay more for fuel, groceries and electricity. The cost of living in the Northern Territory is considerably higher than it is along the eastern seaboard, in the metropolitan areas, the major cities and so on. Because the average weekly income of a person working in the Northern Territory is slightly higher than it is for people in the States, but not the Australian Capital Territory, I believe the means test will exclude many of the people in the outback who should have the opportunity of receiving the grant. Perhaps the Governnment has not fully understood the situation. This situation might apply to only a few people-the population of the Northern Territory is only some 150,000. I must admit, compared with the population of Australia now, that is a very minute figure. But we must consider that people go there to develop the outback and the north. I think they should be given due regard for this. In talking about the development of the north, as I am now, it is interesting to compare the latest growth figures of the Northern Territory with those of the States. Last year the population of the Northern Territory increased by some 5. 56 per cent. The Australian average increases in population was 1.71 per cent. This means that the Northern Territory is now growing at a rate that is more than 300 per cent higher than the Australian average. The State which experienced an increase closest to that of the Northern Territory was Queensland with 3.17 per cent. This means that the population in the Territory is growing at a rate that is almost double that of Queensland. The other States fall away to varying degrees, with Tasmania and South Australia experiencing no increase at all. I have spoken briefly on various matters relating to the outback. I now speak about some funding of the Aboriginal population. I am pleased to see that in very many areas funding is increasing as demands require it. I refer to the community development employment projects scheme. This scheme seeks to bring employment to remote areas where employment conditions are at a low ebb. As we know, over the years there has been difficulty in that Aboriginal people have been unable to receive money on which to live and many of them have been in receipt of the unemployment benefit. The unemployment benefit is not particularly acceptable to many people on Aboriginal settlements. Many people believe that the payment of 'sit down money'-I also can well believe this-is detrimental to them; it takes the incentive out of life. As one old fellow said: 'The Government does not want us to work. It puts money into our hands for us to sit down.' Over the years both governments have endeavoured to find another form of subsistence, and so the community development employment projects scheme was developed. This has now spread through the outback. I am not knocking this scheme but I suggest that the Government should look at it because I do not think that the Government or the Aboriginal people are receiving their money's worth from the vast amount of money that is being spent on it. Money should be spent on fishing, gardens, animal husbandry, abattoirs and all those things, but such projects appear not to be encouraged. If those projects were encouraged we would see more employment and better food for the people. Only last week I made a trip to Arnhem Land and I was told by the Aboriginal people that the CDEP scheme is now just another sideline of the unemployment benefit. Many people are being put on to the payroll of CDEP but never work. I think that is sufficient comment. I believe that the Government should take a very realistic look at this situation because the social problems that are growing there should not be encouraged. One of the problems within the pastoral industry in the Northern Territory-this applies around Australia-relates to the brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication campaign. This has been going on for some years with the aim that by 1992 Australia should be free of brucellosis. In February 1983 the Australian Agricultural Council endorsed a plan to accelerate the campaign over a nine-year period, costing some $290m. The newsletter of the Northern Territory Cattle Council states: The apparent lack of Commonwealth commitment to the eradication of brucellosis and tuberculosis casts a shadow of uncertainty over the future of the National BTEC scheme. Frankly, I cannot understand what is happening. It was assessed by the authorities-that is, the Commonwealth authorities, the Northern Territory authorities and the cattle organisations-that, for example, in the Northern Territory some $112m was required for a comprehensive and accelerated program of eradication. But I see now that the Northern Territory allocation is $19.1m, or 86 per cent below the amount endorsed by the AAC. Also, the original funding for BTEC was intended to be 75 per cent Federal Government and 25 per cent Northern Territory Government. It now appears to be a 50-50 situation. The point I make is that for Australia's good this campaign must be accelerated. If people could see the situation in the north now, with vast numbers of cattle and buffalo living in uncontrolled situations, they would ask how on earth Australia could be free of brucellosis by 1992. If we are not free of brucellosis by 1992, what will happen to our world markets? We have only a few years in which to succeed in this eradication campaign. It is not an easy job. In fact, Australia has to make an all-out effort now to be free of brucellosis by 1992. Much has to be done, but the only way it can be done-naturally the pastoral industry will participate in the funding-is for the onus to be on the Federal Government, conjointly with the States, to bring about a much more comprehensive program than is being anticipated now. In the past few weeks much mention has been made of the disappointment following the Budget announcement that the railway link to Darwin from Alice Springs is not to be continued. I am heartened to some degree that at least the planning and surveying of the route continues. I think that some $5m is being made available so that within the year the planning for the line will be ready. At the moment I believe some 100 people are involved in this planning aspect. The Labor Premier of South Australia and the Country Liberal Party Chief Minister of the Northern Territory have both gone to the Federal Government to indicate what will happen following the construction of the line. For instance, tourism in Darwin will increase by 176 per cent. This is real development of the north. A minimum of 2,000 jobs will be created as a direct result. Actual construction of the railway is expected to increase gross domestic product by between $163m and $352m. It is interesting to note that last week the Aboriginal people, particularly those along the planned track, indicated their support for the route. It will run through part of the Warlmanpa claim area. The traditional owners have said that the land will be available to the Government for the construction of the line. I hope that, at the end of the inquiry that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is now bringing about, the Federal Government will understand and believe that the time has come for the line to be constructed. I was disappointed to hear that defence was not included in the terms of reference. I believe that if we are to envisage the rail link as a viable project, defence must play a very real part; it would be a major customer of such a line. I turn briefly to the defence of Australia. People of the north and the outback are perhaps more aware of the necessity for greater northern defence because many people are still alive who were bombed, straffed and harassed by the Japanese during the Second World War. Many hundreds of people in Darwin and on the northern part of our coastline were killed. They look with considerable concern at the various projects that are still being considered by the Federal Government. I cite Tindal and the necessity of a full scale project for the FA18 fighters, the replacement aircraft for No. 75 Squadron which has just returned from Butterworth to Darwin and is a most essential part of northern defence. The Jindalee over-the-horizon radar is an amazing project developed by Australian scientists. While situated in the middle of the continent, it can actually locate aircraft and vessels way out in the Indian Ocean. But this project at the moment seems to be held up. The project which was brought about earlier to test the system has been proved. It now needs funding to bring it into an active situation. The patrol boat base in Darwin is a very important project. It has been completed in the last year or so. New patrol boats have been constructed in Cairns and are now patrolling the northern coastline. It is a very sophisticated patrol boat base and is working well. I commend the planners. If one visits the area one can see that there are areas of deep water for extra wharfage for other boats. I believe the time has now come to conjointly construct that extra wharfage with other defence projects and provide for the new FFG destroyers that will be delivered to Australia in a few years. What could be more natural than for base and wharfage facilities to be made available at the top of Australia so that our latest destroyers can be maintained and victualled for patrolling the Indian Ocean? Very briefly, I deplore the fact that the Government has seen fit to decrease the intake of secondary and tertiary overseas students and to raise the fees for the students by $400 to $2,900. I believe this is wrong and is a short sighted approach. We should be assisting these people from South East Asia. We should encourage them to go into the universities of Australia. I believe that because of this a further university should be established in Darwin. I believe that by doing that we will ensure that in future those people to whom we are now leaning more and more will have a greater appreciation of Australia and become part of Australia. In fact, it is interesting to note that people who, over the last few years, can be considered friends of Australia from South East Asia and the Pacific include Singapore's Minister for National Development, Ministers of the Fijian Government, the King of Tonga and other people who now communicate with Australia in so many ways, and who have been educated in Australia. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Coleman) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator MASON(New South Wales)(6.12) —Those listening to this debate recently may be surprised that we are debating the Budget. The convention is that honourable senators can raise all kinds of matters in this debate. I wish to concern myself with some aspects of the Budget. I feel that one of the great inadequacies of the Budget is that it has failed to take sufficient notice of the need to provide for the unemployed. Australia's huge unemployment rate has become a cliche. It is dangerous to the extent that people are now beginning to take it for granted and do not understand that we are, to an extent, not only losing a large proportion of a new generation of young people who are the best educated generation we have ever had in this country, but also that many other people later on in their lives, in their forties and fifties, who have lost their jobs and have not been able to find new ones are facing a degree of frustration which is deplorable. This is a social problem which has vast consequences for this country. It is not good enough simply to say that unemployment will go on. It is true that we have underway now important areas of temporary relief under the community employment program. But these can do nothing to solve the overall problem. They provide short term work only. I think the Government must be given credit to the extent that it is providing that and that there is a training element in this area so that, at least, young people will be trained for a few months in some kind of new skill, albeit a not very advanced one. Their problem after that, of course, is to find work and to put those skills to use. Here, of course, we reach the crunch. The unemployment problem certainly looms massively enough. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, said yesterday that the problem is that somehow we must create as many as 120,000 new jobs every year just to maintain employment at its present rate. This, of course, is because of the rapid growth of the labour force. The Minister said yesterday also that he felt things were on the improve which he defined as a gradual turnaround that will become clearer as the year goes on. In this respect the Minister reminds me of the canoeist who lost his paddle, was drifting towards a waterfall and was hoping for a wind to get up to blow him back to safety. The Government seems to have the naive hope that things will improve all by themselves although the Government has also warned the community that, on its present program of activity, there will continue to be mass unemployment for many years to come. The Australian Democrats believe that that is the coldest possible type of comfort for the unemployed. We do not believe it is good enough. I want to use this occasion to discuss what, perhaps, might be done about it. In doing so I will look at several matters which were part of the Democrats' alternative Budget which was presented earlier this year and which raised a large number of innovative and interesting ideas in many areas of government. The second major inadequacy of the Budget seems to be the Government's failure to understand that new jobs can be created most easily by encouraging completely new and innovative industries and that there is little point in continuing to train people for occupations already overcrowded. This seems to be a point of basic importance which should inform our national policies. It is absurd that we should be going on with university courses which are training large numbers of people in the professional fields which we now know will be overcrowded for years to come. What can we possibly hope to achieve by that kind of attitude? We need, of course, a master indicative plan for the economy that will identify new areas of possible endeavour, especially in the languishing manufacturing industry which has shed job opportunities year after year for many years at a catastrophic rate in Australia. Again it is a major task for the Government to change that and to provide the climate where it can change. In that regard I was interested to notice that at the technology summit last week the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was reported as saying that we needed to get into new technology all right but the approach of business and academics to that so far had been pathetic. That may well be true, but here again we find that curious naivete that somehow industry will get into these magic new technologies all by itself. I doubt whether that can reasonably be so. It is a fact that the new technologies are, to a large extent, interdependent. For instance, the development of new successful and massive solar power stations in the United States of America in recent years and the planning of even larger ones up to the hundred megawatt range, which is a pretty big sort of power station, has been due to advances in computer science. The two industries, and indeed a third, the development of more and more sophisticated microchips, go together. They are interdependent. That has to be recognised first. The second major point is that Australian business at the moment is very demoralised. The new sunrise industries are very expensive and rather risky to get into. Money is short and nobody is in the frame of mind to risk huge sums of it on isolated enterprises that might well turn out to be damp squibs. If the Government does not think that it has a special responsibility to the nation at this time to provide an informed, accurate and comprehensive framework within which industry and investors can operate in the fields of these new technologies then it is time it realised that it has that responsibility. The accident of the ballot box, or perhaps the deliberation of the voter, has put this Government in control of the country at a crucial stage at which we must make rapid changes, at which we must face up to the necessity that new things are going to have to happen, and soon, not in one year's time or 10 years time or 15 years time. It will be too late then. This accurate, informed and comprehensive framework should be the work of our Department of Science and Technology, which at present is a mish mash of various loosely assorted, vaguely scientific organisations which have been brought together under a sort of umbrella and which as far as we can see from results so far has little sense of direction. I am not criticising that Department or its employees. What is needed now is a well organised technology task force which can enlist people from business, from the universities and from the Public Service expressly to find out what industries are most suitable for new opportunities in Australia, which can be naturally associated in the sense of assisting each other so that they are complementary, and the basic financial nitty gritty behind this. That task force should now be a major and urgent priority of the Government. As I have said here before, the Government is lucky. It has a man in charge of science and technolgy, the Minister for Science and Technology, Mr Barry Jones, who has a deserved reputation for intelligence, breadth of vision and imagination. Senator Robertson —And a good memory. Senator MASON —And a good memory, yes. It would seem to me that his main problem so far is that the Government is trying to duck out on the undoubted truth of a lot of the things he has to say. I can understand the Government's problem because a lot of things the Minister has said in his book and elsewhere, and the Australian Democrats say them too, are unpalatable. There is going to be change, there is going to have to be a big alteration in community attitudes, union attitudes, and government attitudes. The Australian Democrats advise the Government: 'Give Mr Jones his head. Let him tackle the necessary and urgent task of getting Australia into new job creating and wealth producing technologies'. I believe that this Government will in the long term be regarded by history as having been either a failure or a success on the extent to which it succeeds or otherwise in that job. I cannot repeat too often that a hit and miss, ad hoc approach to new technology would be a disaster of the worst order. We need to know clearly where we are going as a nation, what areas of industry we can reasonably specialise in , what the markets for such products would be, the basic economics of that, and the extent to which government can reasonably assist industry with research grants, subsidies and tax concessions. I suggest that even the announcement of a positive approach of this kind would give everyone in Australia, from the financiers through business to the work force, the growth in confidence we now need to break through in what we hope will be an improving but still highly competitive world scene. I discussed these thoughts with a senior executive of a major Australian insurance company only yesterday. That company happens to be one of our major investors. His response was: 'Yes, you are absolutely right. We have been thinking along those lines for some time. You can take it from me that business cannot and will not wade into the cold water of innovation without some kind of national framework of guidance.' It is a fact, of course, that in virtually every country where new and innovative industries are being developed that framework is being provided. I suggest that the Government should get this technology task force going and that its first job should be to consult with Australian business and finance houses to see what parameters they feel they can operate within. We do not want an ivory tower. We do not want a group of people going off in a huddle at some summit or other somewhere, as with the technology summit last week, and saying: 'This is great. This is a good old boys situation and maybe we will have another one like it in a year's time.' That is the last thing we want. We want something that gets down to practicalities right from the start. Having done that, the Government can then see how it can approach the matter to meet other long term community needs. For instance, it is high time we recognised that all kinds of things-fuels, metals and other minerals-are fast running out. New energy industries are an obvious area for urgent study, and they are being urgently studied in a major way in virtually every country except Australia, where the amount of expertise devoted to them is pitiably small and where we do not even seem to understand what is going on in the rest of the world. We still get people standing up in this place and saying: 'Solar energy is airy fairy. Wind energy is just for the future. It is science fiction stuff'. That is nonsense. These things are working extremely well in other countries, and they are a major source of attention in countries such as Japan and the United States of America, where people are not exactly silly in areas of business. The basic tenet of the philosophy of the Australian Democrats is that we must create a sustainable society in Australia, as indeed must be done everywhere else in the world. Eventually and inevitably, everything we use must be renewable. It is high time governments, including the Government here, devoted themselves to that thought, not just paying lip service, but in reality. To this end we feel it is imperative that more funding be provided for research into renewable energy sources. This is a matter of urgency as our fossil fuels are being consumed at an exponential rate. The present glut of oil products, which perhaps reassures us, is artificial and will be short lived: We can be sure of that. In another five or six years there will be another petrol crisis. One shot fired tonight in Riyadh, the Saudi Arabian capital, and this country would be in grave trouble within three months-very grave trouble. That is all it would take. We are as dependent as that on events overseas. An increase in research funding, although vital, is not the only necessity if our dependence on non-renewable energy sources is to be broken. We must actively encourage all consumers in the use of renewable resources. These new endeavours would, of course, create whole areas of new employment. Solar energy technology has advanced to such a stage that it is a viable commercial proposition, the use of which could be enormously increased if users were allowed a tax deduction or rebate on the cost of the installation of solar hot water heaters, an established known technology already in production in Australia, as is the case in California in the United States, where a 55 per cent tax credit is allowed for the installation of approved solar or wind energy systems. By the end of this year the SolarCal Council, a technology guidance body formed for the special purpose and with which I have been in close touch, expects that there will be 200,000 solar heaters and 150,000 solar space conditioning installations in California. New government buildings in California which have floor space exceeding 10,000 square feet are required by law to use solar hot water heaters. Existing government buildings are being converted to solar heating. By 1985 this program is expected to save 15 per cent of the oil and gas California would otherwise have had to import and-this is the interesting point-to employ about 30,000 people of all levels of skill and experience, from skilled to unskilled. It can be demonstrated that such a program could be introduced into Australia just as easily, and that it would dramatically increase employment at an even rate through all Australian cities and towns, not only industrial centres, because this would be a regional requirement. The experience is available for the asking. All we have to do is go to California and ask for its experience. There is no difficulty about it. There is no possibility that it will not work. There is absolutely no risk, and it would immediately put young people and others in Australia into employment. It would also have the valuable merit of starting the trend toward renewable energy, which we know has to come if we are not all going to rush eventually into mass suicide through sheer deprivation. By 1990, according to the Petroleum Gazette, which is an industry paper, Australia's oil demand is predicted to be 120 million litres a day. Less than half of that will come from known fields. By the year 2000, 134 million litres a day will be used, on current projections, and only 27 million litres will be available from current fields. Self-sufficiency in oil will drop from about 68 per cent now to 43 per cent in 1990, and to 20 per cent by the year 2000. We hope that major new finds of oil will come, but that cannot of course be relied on. It is not a safe basis on which to proceed into the future. I visited the United States last year and was greatly reassured to find a general renunciation of nuclear energy, which is widely seen in that country now as being dangerous and uneconomic. Of course, the reason why so many utilities are cancelling their orders for nuclear plants-even some which have put tens of millions of dollars already into the projects-is that it is seen now as not a viable source of investment for the future. I also found, to my great pleasure, a genuine practical effort to turn to other means, which we in this country could reasonably emulate. I visited the world's largest solar power station, Solar I in the Mojave Desert, 50 miles east of Los Angeles. Its operations are automated and computerised to the extent that its needs, including maintenance, can be met by a staff of three. While the sun is shining, Solar I produces 12 1/ 2 megawatts of electricity, enough for a fairly large town, and this daytime solar running can provide power for 6,000 households. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. (Quorum formed) Senator MASON —Before the suspension of the sitting for dinner I had urged the Government to set up a special task force on technology which would be designed to research new areas of high technology industries that could enable a significant breakthrough to be made in Australia's ailing manufacturing industry , and which would be a major source of new jobs. I suggested this on the basis of the axiom that it is useless to train people for areas of work which are already overcrowded although, surprisingly enough, we are in Australia still training people for areas of work which are overcrowded. It is only an indication of the extent to which habit becomes part of national routines. Senator Robertson —And people's choice. Senator MASON —Indeed, and people's choice, but there again I would suggest that it should be part of the Government's role to suggest to people that they are being trained in areas in which they have no reasonable chance of finding work in the future. I went on to say that new jobs could be provided by new and innovative technologies but that it was the Government's job to research a feasible framework for Australia in this direction, so that we would get a collection of new technologies which, as I said, tended to be interdependent, dependent on each other, and complementary, which would be a goer and which would not expect industry to do one-off expeditions into higher technology which would not work. I instanced the state of California's SolarCal Council as a model for such a task force. The SolarCal Council has been responsible for a number of years for a conversion of the State of California to an effective use of tried areas of solar technology. It has succeeded brilliantly in that and has, amongst other things, created 30,000 jobs which did not exist before in these new areas of technology. At the same time, of course, it has also made things easier for the United States of America in the long term, because it has reduced substantially the demand for non-renewable areas of industry. When I visited the United States last year I was greatly reassured to find a general renunciation of nuclear power, which is now widely seen in that country as dangerous and uneconomic with orders for new nuclear power houses being cancelled regularly, even where large sums of money, as much as tens of millions of dollars, have already been invested because it is seen as dangerous, uneconomic and in no way a suitable source of power for the future. Associated with that I found a genuine practical effort in the United States to turn to other means of power generation. When I visited the world's largest solar power station, as I know a number of other senators have done, that is Solar I in the Mojave Desert near Los Angeles, I found a remarkable, almost space age, technology there actually in operation. Its operation is automated and computerised to the extent that its needs, including maintenance, can be met by a staff of three. Senator Peter Baume —This is the space age, Senator. Senator MASON —Indeed, it is the space age. But one would not know it in Australia. The extent to which we are exploring these new technologies in this country is deplorably low. We seem to think this is still far into the future, a sort of science fiction, when every other advanced society is well into research and getting practical things going on the ground. Solar I is a perfect example of that. It produces 12 1/2 megawatts of electricity and on this daytime running Solar I can provide enough power for 6, 000 households. So it is obviously a sensible type of installation for decentralised use for relatively small country towns which are, nevertheless, communities of considerable size. At night-that peak period that comes after dark, when the requirement for power is, of course, still there-a thermal storage unit retains surplus heat attracted during the day, and enables Solar I to go on producing seven megawatts of power, almost half its daytime capacity, for four hours. Of course, at that time the demand for power starts to fall off. The storage unit consists of nearly 7,000 tonnes of rock and sand and a quarter of a million gallons of a type of oil specifically developed as an efficient heat exchanger. All that technology, of course, is tried and established. It is available to Australia if we want it, but apparently we do not. We prefer to live at the tail end of the old industrial era and we will have to be carried kicking and screaming into the new one. It is of interest that a second similar power station is being built nearby by a private enterprise corporation which is so confident that it has already contracted to supply solar power to California's major supply authority at a lower price than that of power generated by burning fossil fuels, or nuclear power stations. That technology has been backed up by another completely new industry, a huge factory which will do nothing but manufacture mirrors for solar power houses. That again is another source of employment. Those are the sorts of innovations which I suggest that the Government's new task force on technology- if and when we ever get it-should look at. Wind power is being seriously studied in Hawaii and is actually in use in a number of small scale operations such as businesses and cattle ranches. The lesson there is that perhaps the very huge wind generator is not necessarily a good thing, but that something about the 55 kilowatt range, which can supply a number of communities, is a viable alternative. However, I did visit the largest of these generators, a joint National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Department of Energy project, which generates 220 kilowatts of power. It has functioned very successfully for a number of years and operates most of the time quite automatically without any regular staffing whatsoever. Plans are in preparation quite near that site, on the island of Oahu, for a much larger facility, a wind farm of 20 machines which will produce a total of 80 megawatts. Accordingly, it is a facility which is comparable with the late lamented Gordon below Franklin Dam in Tasmania. This is very important because research has already shown that the west coast of Tasmania is probably the world 's best area for wind generators for electric power. I must suggest to Mr Robin Gray that when he gets all his money from the Commonwealth in compensation, he might look at that not only as a means of providing power to Tasmania but also as a means of enabling Tasmania to become an area of manufacture of such machines which could then be exported to other parts of Australia and, indeed, to other parts of the world, because there is a rapidly growing market for such things. What I have said indicates above all a great need for rapid change in community attitudes and responses. That is a matter also for the Government to do a public relations job of sufficient conviction to persuade people that this change is necessary, as indeed it is. The Australian Democrats do not believe that any change should be applied dictatorially by governments. Such things must come in consultation with the community itself. Government must involve people more and increase the ordinary citizen's share in the process of government. Only in this way shall we achieve an impetus sufficient to make the rapid changes which are necessary. To that end I again urge honourable senators to think carefully about and to support the concept of electors initiative, citizen initiated referenda, which, as honourable senators will know, I put forward originally in my maiden speech here nearly five years ago, as a private member's Bill. The present system which restricts the right to initiate law in the Parliament is, as I have said before in this place, an anachronism in this day and age, and it must go. This is an idea whose time has come. The sooner we face up to that, the better. The relevance of our present sytem to the nineteenth century may have existed, but it is no longer enough for a free and highly educated people who are very much more interested in public affairs than their predecessors were to have the right to elect one party or another to government and to have no real control over the legislation process beyond that. I do not suggest that every piece of legislation should be handled in this way; I mention only those areas of great importance to the community, controversial areas, areas of vital concern. To that end I have proposed a system whereby any petition carrying no fewer than 250,000 signatures would be put to referendum with other such petitions once a year. If carried, they would become law without any sanction from parliament. Earlier I mentioned the SolarCal Council and events in California. It is significant that this system, the citizen initiated referendum, has been part of the means of government in California from the beginning of this century. Indeed , other States such as Washington and those States in the United States which have this means, in virtually rallying, conscripting and organising public opinion to their requirements, have been a much greater success than those that do not have it. I would say that the classic example of this is to be found in Switzerland, where 25 per cent of a very adequate defence budget-the Swiss have very good armed forces for their size-is allocated to civil defence, so that the Swiss, unlike us, have the best defence against possible nuclear attack of any country in the world. The interesting thing about that is that it was brought into operation in 1962 as a result of a citizen initiated referendum. The people know what they want and they know where their best interests are. It is a perfect case in point. In the time remaining to me, I should like to describe an employment scheme which has been in use in the United States of America in various forms since 1933 and which the Australian Democrats wholeheartedly support and recommend to the Government as a unique and extremely useful way of alleviating the problems of youth unemployment and the slow but certain destruction of our natural environment. The American Conservation Corps, as it is now called, seeks to provide employment and training opportunities for young men and women, particularly those who are disadvantaged and living in areas of high unemployment, in labour-intensive projects accomplishing the conservation, rehabilitation and improvement of natural and cultural resources located on public or Indian lands. The projects include forestry, nursery and silvicultural operations-including reafforestation, which, heaven knows, we need badly enough, as anyone who has driven through the New England plateau and seen the depredations of die-back will know-wildlife habitat conservation, rangeland conservation, recreational area development, fisheries assistance, road and trail maintenance, pollution control, fire prevention, insect and rodent control , energy conservation projects, and reclamation of strip-mined lands, among many other possibilities. This program provides a preference for those projects which provide long term benefits to the public-these are the guidelines, and I suggest that our Government note them-provide interesting work experience to those involved and useful work experience in the sense of the training element, and are labour- intensive and can be planned and initiated promptly. Even with the community employment program, I suggest that those should be the guidelines. Accommodation , meals and medical care are provided, and those involved are paid no less than the wage required by the United States Fair Labour Standards Act 1939. In addition, up to 10 per cent of available funds are used to provide education services and materials for academic study during non-working hours to upgrade literacy and numeracy skills, to allow the young people in the program to finish high school, to obtain a university degree or to enhance their present employable skills. I know that there is trouble over this with the unions. Our union movement, which I regard as one of the most conservative in the world-one of the most conservative forces in the world, not just one of the most conservative union movements-a true conservative group, does not want this. It is perfectly happy to let young people go on in desperation and without jobs as long as those with jobs can keep them. I should have thought that it was the task and opportunity of the Labor Government to persuade the unions differently and, please, to persuade them that some sort of scheme such as this, which would give our young people an opportunity for the future, could come into being. That is one of the two or three major tasks that I have outlined in talking about the Budget tonight which I see as necessary, and historically, for this Government, occupying the treasury bench as it does at this time, to carry out. As I have said, the Government will be judged by history on the extent to which it can successfully carry Australia through this period of change or fail to do so. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland)(8.15) —In speaking in this Budget debate, I should like to say that Labor's handling of the economy, whether it be at Federal or State level, is best measured by the price of fuel at the bowser. On 16 February 1983 the then Leader of the Opposition said: As part of Labor's anti-inflation package, and in recognition of the burden of extra taxation levied by the Government on people affected by the wage freeze, Labor will reduce the price of petrol by cancelling the January 1 oil price increase of $3.23 per barrel. This will have the effect of reducing the price by 3c a litre. It will reduce the consumer price index by half of one point. Furthermore, the then shadow Minister for Primary Industry, now the Minister representing the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in this place, Senator Walsh, said on 28 February in a Press statement that petrol prices would be immediately cut by about 3c a litre and that liquefied petroleum gas prices would be cut by 1.5c a litre when Labor became the Government. Senator Peter Baume —That was a promise, too. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —There are many broken promises. I shall mention a few of them later. In Queensland every Australian Labor Party candidate, from far flung Kennedy right through to urban McPherson, campaigned on the emotional issue of 'petrol cuts'. Labor has now been in power for seven months, and none of us has seen any sign of those petrol price cuts. What we have seen is an increase in the price of fuel, in other words, taxes through extra fuel prices. Today in the Senate, Senator Gerry Jones from Queensland, presented loaded notices of motion against the Queensland Government. I point out that the Queensland Government has the best economy in Australia. It has a balanced Budget. It does not have a deficit-not very much, anyway; not by comparison with the deficits in some of the other States. There is a $40m deficit in New South Wales, and Victoria too, has quite a big deficit. In Queensland Mr Keith Wright, the Leader of the Opposition, has made a lot of promises, hoping that Labor would come to power on 22 October. But if he thinks, as he has said, that there is a deficit in Queensland, it is a wonder to me that he made all these promises . It is a wonder that he did not say: 'I cannot do anything because there is a deficit and it is not possible to make all these promises'. But certainly he will not have an opportunity to keep his promises in any case. The people of Queensland can see for themselves the progress and development that has taken place in our State. As a matter of fact, 700 people a week know the progress and development that is taking place in Queensland. On Monday of this week the Sydney Morning Herald contained an article by Jenny Tabakoff called 'Monday' which told of a tropical paradise and about a chap by the name of Jim who used to drive interstate trucks for 18 years, often driving for days at a time. Then he would go home to his family, but he did not have much spare time because he was continually driving these big transports. Then, she said, he saw the light-the clear Queensland light-and he drove north with his wife, his children and his dog in the family car. Now he works an eight-hour day, lives by the beach, hates Melbourne, distrusts the south and loves Queensland. As I have said before, there are 700 people a week doing the same thing. Honourable senators might say that that is because of the good climate there. I maintain that God gave the climate to Queensland when he made the world. To my way of thinking, it has taken people the last 10 years to decide that the climate in Queensland is good for them to come in such numbers. It is the political climate that is so good in Queensland and the tremendous development that is taking place there. It is the most decentralised State in Australia. I should like to draw the Senate's attention to the fact that there is no doubt that Queensland is the lowest taxed State in Australia. Nobody can deny that. There are no State gift duties or death duties. We do not have to pay road permit fees in Queensland. We do not have a State tobacco tax. Neither do we have a State fuel tax, which ever so many States have. We have the highest exemption level for payroll tax and we have the lowest third party insurance premiums. Most certainly we do not have that iniquitous financial institutions duty that has been imposed on so many people throughout Australia. I cannot understand why Senator Gerry Jones cannot produce sensible notices of motion to help the people of Queensland. Why can he not produce a notice of motion asking his Labor Government when it intends to give Australians fuel price cuts instead of increases? Labor's record on fuel prices is a sorry one. In the May mini-Budget it increased the excise on aviation fuel by 2c a litre. The cost to the aviation industry was $15m. It abolished the special depreciation allowance for petrol storage. In 1983-84 it decreased, at a cost of $10m, the subsidy payable under the petrol products freight subsidy scheme. Then in the August Budget the petroleum products freight subsidy scheme was cut back to save $2m. It removed the sales tax exemption for oil fuels and lubricants. It increased by 1.5c, or 2c at the bowser, the excise on petrol and diesel fuel for tractors. This is a rather sad and sorry story, I am afraid. It also increased the excise on aviation fuel by 0.5c a litre on top of the 2c a litre increase in May. As I said, it is a sorry record. Labor has increased the cost of every kind of transport fuel it can find. In other words, the voters were ambushed. I am sad to say that State Labor governments have also been using the petrol bowser to prop up ailing State economies. Queensland is the only State where there is no petrol tax. In 1982, in New South Wales and Victoria, the tax on petrol was 3.02c a litre for super and 2.95c for standard. The people of Queensland certainly will not want a new direction that will mean State taxes on fuel. They will realise that a State Labor Government would mean broken promises , just as we have seen from the Federal Government. The Federal Government started out by promising 500,000 new jobs. It promised that there would be no increases in taxes. I have just been talking to the Senate about the increased taxes that have arisen through the increased fuel prices. Instead of having lower petrol prices we have higher fuel prices. The Labor Government said there would be no superannuation tax. We all know the sad story about that. There is a 30 per cent superannuation tax. We have seen evidence of the effect of that-the airline pilots strike over the last couple of days. The Government also promised that it would not hurt pensioners. We know exactly what has happened to them. It was estimated that the initial 1.5 per cent increase in fuel excise would yield $300m. The federal taxes on petrol and diesel fuel will raise more than $4,600m. That certainly ought to help to reduce the deficit that the Labor Party keeps telling us it faced when it came to power . Everybody-families, businessmen, rural people-will be hit by the fuel tax. In fact, as far as rural peolple are concerned, the more they travel-distances are very great in this country-the more they will have to pay by way of fuel tax. People who go on holidays also have to pay excessive prices now for their fuel. The airlines have had to put up their fares because of the rise in aviation fuel and of course that hits tourism. There is no doubt about that. The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Mr John Brown, promised a tax deduction for people holidaying in Australia. I feel that it would have been much better if he had decided that deductions would apply to firms which would provide jobs for people rather than what he has suggested. Of course, in Queensland Labor has come out with the idea of one vote one value for rural people to take away representation. Senator Giles —Oh! How appalling! What next! Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —In Western Australia it is one to seven. Certainly in Queensland it is a lot less than that. Somebody ought to look at the gerrymander in New South Wales. When Labor got into power in New South Wales it amalgamated country shires. That is something that I am sure the people in the country in New South Wales are not very happy about. I think that people should think about equal representation for people who live in the country. I want to get back to the problems that have been caused by the increase in the cost of petrol and oil . This will mean increases in the cost of a whole range of goods and services. Senator Giles —Why don't they drive hydrogen cars? Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —The road transport industry, under threat, will have to pass on the costs to consumers which, of course, will result in substantial increases in road haulage rates, from 8 per cent to 15 per cent. Senator Crowley —Use the trains. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —In Queensland, to run the trains we have to use diesel fuel and the cost of diesel fuel has also gone up, thanks to the Labor Government. Honourable senators on the Labor side of the House do not like what I am saying, so they have to keep on talking about it. Housing will also be affected. Road transport's input into housing costs is about five per cent. Indexation of excise will build in automatic increases. I feel that the decision to index petrol was certainly very ill-conceived. To me it was actually a very sneaky sort of tax. It will be increased every six months. It will be indexed without any announcement about it. Every six months people will have to pay more for petrol. This will react, I am sure, against the Labor Party at the Queensland election on 22 October. Primary producers are the biggest users of fuel in the world and the Budget has certainly placed a greater share of the burden on the primary industry sector. Actually, outlays for the agricultural and pastoral industries in the 1983-84 Budget fell by nearly 10 per cent whereas the overall Budget outlay increased by 16 per cent and assistance to the manufacturing sector is up 30 per cent. It is certainly easy to see that this Government is anti-rural. The Budget makes a complete mockery of the Treasurer's statement. In his Budget Speech, he said: We have sought to share the burden of extra taxation fairly through the community so that nobody, other than blatant tax avoiders, is expected to make major sacrifices. That is something that we ought to remember and think about. Increased freight charges, because of the rise in excise and indexation, will impose a heavy burden on the cost of goods in country towns. Food prices could rise by up to five per cent. I think this all proves that rural people will have to bear an unfair share of extra taxation through fuel tax rises. According to the Budget statement, farm incomes fell by 53 per cent in 1982-83- the largest fall in 30 years-due to costs rising more rapidly than product prices. Having said that, what does Labor do? It increased the excise on petrol and distillate, and indexed it. Labor does not understand practical rural Australia. Labor thinks it is the farmer's friend but its damning policies condemn it as far as the rural sector is concerned. Certainly it calls itself the farmer's friend but I do not think, from what I have told the Senate, that that is quite right. The increase in the price of diesel by 1.5c per litre will also be reflected in rail freight charges and that, of course, will be a tax upon a tax. It will increase the cost of transporting coal from mines to ports, which will make it harder for mines to compete on the export market. People need only to look at the fuel bowsers to remind them of Labor's disastrous policies in this connection. The tourist industry will be particularly hit by the increased excises and their indexation. Tourism contributes $2.2 billion to Queensland's economy. There is an annual growth rate in the industry of 7.4 per cent in Queensland compared with the national average of 1.6 per cent. Tourism is the immediate cash flow to north Queensland and, to a great extent, it helps the north. What about removing the fuel excises and their six-monthly indexation to encourage tourism and give cheaper holidays rather than give tax deductions to Australians who holiday within Australia? The best thing I could suggest to the Government would be to drop fuel excises altogether. That would be the best tax decrease possible for everyone, particularly people in Queensland which has such vast wide open spaces and where people have to travel such distances. People in Queensland use a lot of fuel. The fuel tax strikes at the heart of the family budget. I suppose one could say that fuel is one of the necessities of life. Tax on fuel affects every aspect of the family budget. Nothing escapes it. Some people have to travel perhaps 15 kilometres to work. It is estimated that those people will have to pay an extra $2.20 per week. Of course, outings at the weekend will cost more. These facts prove that the increases in fuel prices will have a disastrous effect on Australia's economy. Much has been said about the Government's reintroduction of the pension income test and the interpretation thereof. I suppose this Government has blamed everybody but itself for the misunderstanding and misinterpretation in the community about the test. Nowhere in the Budget Papers does it spell out that single pensioners may have up to $17,000 in savings accounts and married couples up to $28,500 and still be eligible for the maximum pension. I believe that this was a serious mistake by the Government. It has certainly caused a lot of anxiety and concern to the people who are involved. Even now, there still seems to be quite a deal of uncertainty. The income test certainly must be complicated if it has to have 1,500 staff to carry out the initial assessments and if it is to cost $35m to establish the system in the first year. I want to say a few words about Medicare although I made a speech when the legislation to introduce it was before the chamber. Senator Peter Baume —Tell us again. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —I think it is a very good idea to reiterate some of the points I made on that occasion. The Budget is significant for what it does not say about Medicare. In Queensland there will be a shortfall of $21.2m as a result of the Federal Labor Government's failure to honour Medicare funding arrangements. Queensland submitted a case for extra funding of $36m. In fact, the Queensland Government considered its case was so sound that it included the extra funding in its 1983 Budget calculations. But the Federal Government allocated only $15m. Thus there is a shortfall of $21.2m. The Federal Labor Government is failing to recognise that Queensland has had a free hospital system for decades. By not providing it with compensation equal to that provided to the other States this Government is penalising Queensland for having maintained its free hospital system, which is unique in Australia. Senator Ryan —Introduced by a Labor government. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN —I acknowledge that it was introduced by a Labor government and I wonder why the present Labor Government does not give the Queensland Government credit for having carried on the idea for all these years. I have never said anything about that. That system is now under threat. Labor has introduced a new one per cent tax to make Queenslanders pay for what they already receive for nothing. Public patients in Queensland are being discriminated against financially compared with what the Federal Government pays other States for their public patients. I am talking about making sure that we get our just dues in Queensland. I make it clear that all Queensland is seeking is recompense for public hospital patients equal to the per capita average being paid to the other States, that is, $50 per head and not $29. If the State's public hospital system is put in jeopardy through a lack of funding it will be solely the Federal Labor Government that is to blame. The Queensland Labor Party is so paranoid about not upsetting its Federal counterparts that it will not stand up and argue for Queensland's rightful allocation. The first Budget of the Hawke Labor Government will long be remembered for the ruthless use of fuel as a taxing pool and for penalising Queensland for maintaining a free hospital system by allocating only $15m instead of the right compensation of $36m. The Budget initiatives which benefit Queensland are the State's entitlement. Queenslanders pay tax like everybody else and are not impressed by ministerial visits from time to time giving money here and there for projects as if they are gifts from Canberra. Many problems for Queenslanders are revealed in this Budget. Time alone will show not only Queenslanders but also Australians that the change in government in Canberra has not been to their advantage. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(8.37) —I support this Budget-an admirable Budget that set out to advantage all Australians by setting in motion its program over this and the next two Budgets for fairness, equity and a re- ordering of priorities. It unashamedly sought to reallocate resources and direct assistance to those most in need and most disadvantaged in our community. Economic recovery will advantage all Australians better than any specific payments for the needy. Australians prefer to manage for themselves. They want work, economic independence and the dignity that goes with being able to make choices for themselves. I want to address the Budget in terms of its specific and general gains and advantages for women. I appreciate that this is a somewhat artificial and arbitrary analysis but as women are disproportionately represented by higher numbers in the categories of the disadvantaged, the unemployed and the poor this analysis has considerable value because it highlights the aims and gains of the Budget. There has been a balance-a needed balance-between spending on programs and containing the deficit. There has been a balance between provisions for the poorest and provisions for the other sectors in the community. I revert to a symbol I have used before-real regard has been given to the roses as well as the bread. The principal advantage for women in this Budget is that they have been recognised. There is an acknowledgment of women at all levels in the Budget. The major areas of impact in the Budget cover such things as health, social security , welfare, employment and training, and education. I will go through each one of those and consider it in relation to its particular gains for women. Honourable senators must understand, of course, that I am not suggesting that men are disadvantaged but I think there is some real value in emphasising how this Budget has addressed the needs of women. This Government came into office with a policy specifically directed to women. That is no accident. The women in the Party over the last three to five years have been actively developing that program. The program is based very widely on consultation with many women throughout Australia. The policy is actually known to women and addresses their needs. I think that is reflected in how women's needs are part of every section of the Budget and are in all the major programs and policies. In fact, the Budget also emphasises and continues the beginning steps of an agreement of the National Economic Summit Conference to promote greater equality and independence for women. We also appreciate that that is a first step and we hope we will take more steps before the next election. The Government has made major commitments to upgrading the status of women. I think the first emphasis of that can be seen in the move of the Office of the Status of Women to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Prime Minister's own Department, with improved resources and an upgrading of advice available to the Government. Further, the Government has established a Task Force of Permanent Heads on the Status of Women and this will mean that government administrators in all sections of government will not be able to overlook the perspective of women when looking at problems and solutions. It also will mean that women will have a part in contributing to those solutions that will be proposed. As well as that, an increased allocation has been provided in this Budget, from $32,000 to $60,000, for the Australian Council of Trade Unions Working Women's Centre, the National Council of Women of Australia, the Country Women's Association, the Women's Electoral Lobby and the Young Women 's Christian Association. I think that that range of women's groups needs to be borne in mind. It is yet another example of how wide ranging is this Government' s concern for women. It covers women from all spectrums in Australia. It is a point that the Opposition has completely failed to acknowledge or act upon. The Government is also committed to increasing and broadening consultation with women and women's organisations. To this effect, some $376,000 will be made available in 1983-84 for a program of consultation, research and information on the status of women. Not only will we be talking about women and with women, but also money is set aside for the very important business of collecting data, doing the necessary research, and then providing ways of communicating that information, that education, to the community and to those people in government who will make decisions based on that research. One area of very real interest to me is Medicare. If ever there was a piece of legislation that advantaged women it is the new Medicare legislation. Again I make the point that it advantages all Australians but, as I have said before, I am addressing myself to the particular gains for women. The Medicare legislation is particularly good for women. Principally it is good for women because of its general aims. It is an equitable, affordable, universal and simple health scheme , and for all of those reasons it will advantage women. It will also be a considerable help because it will, in its very establishment, contribute to the lowering of the consumer price index by some 2 1/2 per cent. Of course, that will have benefits across the board in terms of economic recovery as those benefits flow on. The one per cent levy, which will be the cost to those people who have taxable incomes above the level of $128 for a single person and $214 for a couple, will mean that something like two-thirds of Australians, and probably more, will be paying much less for their basic health cover than they are currently paying. It also means that the estimated two million Australians who are currently uninsured will be covered against any possible medical expense or need for health care. The particular advantage of the one per cent levy, involving as it does a smaller amount of money per week for families, and in particular women, is that people will have money in their pockes to be spent on other things. That will, I think in a quite considerable way, contribute to a consumer led economic recovery. One of the things I know from talking with women, and I am sure honourable senators opposite know this, is that when people are poor the first thing they go without is food. Secondly, they will go without their medicine. After that they will manage without heat and power. The last thing people want to give away is the basic shelter. They will somehow manage their rental or mortgage payments but they will find themselves living in a sort of undernourished half-starved way. Perhaps starving is too strong a word, but many people live without sufficient food. Even if it is only $8 a week in a family's pocket, that $8 will make an enormous difference to just the amount of food a family will eat. I exaggerate not at all; my work in the community health centre made that very clear to me. I also know that that is the experience of many of my colleagues who have been in the business of getting out and about and finding out what the real world is. It may seem a small amount of money to some of us, but for many people $8 a week might be 10 per cent of their income. The other important part of Medicare that will advantage women is the better planning and use of one central computer for the collection of data. That will allow for better distribution of services, for the provision of services where the need is. Also, research and information will be valuable. For example, we have had experience and evidence of unnecessary surgery. The information that the number of hysterectomies in one part of the country is five times the national average is the sort of thing that I suppose could be said specifically to benefit women. Tonsils come in both sexes, but uteruses do not. Another part of the health and Medicare platform that will be of advantage to women is the proposed establishment of an occupational safety and health commission. I am delighted that the Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, has already allocated $100,000 a year to the Lidcombe Workers Centre for the next three years. That centre was one of the places that really started to collect the data , provide the information and do the necessary lobbying of people in the community who needed to know about the impact of rapid repetitive injury. They also can tell us that that is not an illness or a health problem that relates to high-tech or upmarket work; it is principally still a problem of the assembly line. That is where lots of poorer women, including migrant women, work and that is where they largely get that sort of illness. The community health program too is being funded under the Medicare scheme, at 1975 real levels as a start. There is also money set aside for initiatives in the community health program. Those of us who have worked in that community health program are aware of the impact of social conditions on the health of people and in particular on the health of women. The most impressive example of that is the effects of grinding poverty on ill health. Further, the health policy specifically addresses itself to an aged care program, with increased money for planning and research grants. As women predominate in the older age groups in our community, these programs will particulatly advantage women. The grants have been increased from $1.5m in 1982- 83 to $3.4m in 1983-84. The aged care program, as with all the Government's programs, contains an element of money that will allow for research and better planning and the provision of services where there are old people. A lot of money and planning will be provided to establish assessment teams so that elderly folk will be enabled as much as possible to live out their lives at home , with domiciliary assistance and so on. Many people, in particular many women, are unable to do home maintainance tasks but to all other intents and purposes can live by themselves quite successfully. Jobs such as cleaning leaves from gutters or changing light bulbs can be difficult problems for older people. Services such as that can mean that people can continue to live in their homes, I might say very much more cheaply in terms of what it costs the Government. That is not necessarily the reason for the establishment of the aged care program; it has been established principally because this Government cares about people living in the place of their choice. Enormous gains for women have been made in the social security and welfare area . Again, that is largely because of the enormous number of women in this country who depend on social security and welfare payments for their subsistance. I guess the first gain is the increase in the unemployment benefit. This is a sort of tragic gain, I suppose, because it points to the problems of so many women, particularly young women, in the unemployed category. There are more unemployed young women than young men and the percentage is horrifically high. But the other area of unemployment in our community which I think is lost often in assessment is the number of women in their late forties and fifties who are too young for an age pension, who no longer have dependent children and who have to somehow manage, particularly if they are living alone, on the unemployment benefit. It is a horrible vulgarity trying to manage on the unemployment benefit particularly when one actually suffers a loss of income as one's children leave home. Further assistance to families in the Budget was specifically addressed to those families who are most needy. There has been an increase in the children's services program of $20.9m including $10m to new and expanded projects and new policy initiatives. This $10m will be increased to $30m in 1984-85. There have been specific assistance programs for poorer families. In particular the additional pension and benefits for children has been increased to $12 per week. Similar increases have been made in the family income supplement which will assist those families which are trying to survive on very low incomes. As well, sole parents, about 90 per cent of whom are women, will benefit from the extension of the mother's or guardian's allowance to recipients of sickness, unemployment and special benefits. I suppose it is a savage comment on our society that so many of these pension and welfare payments advantage women because of their disproportionate representation in those categories. Perhaps on a more cheerful note, the housing assistance in the Budget will be of great benefit to women in particular because of the amount that will be put into public housing. The waiting lists of people for public housing, of course, again, include very large numbers of women. But, as well, families, particularly those with dependent children and in receipt of only modest incomes, will be eligible for the first home owners scheme. With the aim of so many Australians to have a home of their own, this, of course, will be of advantage to women. In the area of assistance to handicapped people a new spouse carer's pension has been established which will allow a husband of an age, service or invalid pensioner wife to receive assistance on the same basis as the wife's pension. It is peculiar sometimes to find these little exceptions to the even-handed distribution of pensions to people performing a similar sort of service. I guess that redresses a peculiar imbalance that existed in this case. Particular emphasis has been placed on assistance to migrants and grants in aid have been provided to migrant communities. Some of this money is specifically earmarked for migrant women. Again, those of us who have had the experience of working in the community with migrants will know that migrant women are disadvantaged in a particular way, very often because they are confined to home and therefore find it difficult to master the English language. They cannot participate in any real way in the community until they can speak the language. They sometimes seek work to try to supplement the family income and that work tends to be in the poorer paid, harsher work situations. I think the most important thing we can give migrant people is the opportunity to master English because when they can, many other things become easier to manage. In particular they can have access to rights that are available to other Australian people but which are not taken up if people do not know about them. An amount of $550,000 has been provided to help establish child care services in association with the adult migrant education program. Again, that simply points to another real difficulty. If we fund programs that enable women to go to school but make no provision for the care of their children, then the whole exercise will be a hollow one. This Government has provided money for child care in association with the adult migrant education program. Senator Peter Baume —What about permanence for adult migrant education teachers? Senator Ryan —We have established it for those who have spent two years in the service. It has been fulfilled. It is there. Thank you for reminding us. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Coleman) —Order! Senator CROWLEY —I thank the honourable senators for that contribution to the debate. Specific assistance has been given to Aboriginal peoples and in particular to Aboriginal women. Aboriginal women and communities will benefit from the expanded role given to the National Aboriginal Conference and the expansion of existing programs in the fields of employment, health, legal aid and community management. Senator Ryan —And education, Senator. Senator CROWLEY —And education. I thank the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs. In particular these programs will be addressed to Aboriginal fringe dwellers who sometimes miss out in mainstream Aboriginal funding. The Government has also established an Aboriginal women's task force. This group will essentially consult with Aboriginal women to find out what their needs are and to let them have a say in what is the best way in which to respond to those needs. Another very important part of this Budget that I would like to touch on is the community employment program. As I mentioned before, particularly young women but also older women who are perhaps part of the hidden unemployed, are enormously disadvantaged in terms of effective employment. A specific term of reference of the community employment program requires 50 per cent of jobs under the program to be provided for women. That 50 per cent is not required in any one proposal for jobs but in an area, a region or a State. The Government acknowledges very clearly and very publicly its intention to make jobs accessible for women of any age as well as for men of any age. The program is particularly addressed to people who are longer term unemployed. The Government acknowledges the limited benefits of the scheme. It would much prefer that we had a return to something approaching full employment. However, it is also appreciative of the effects of unemployment, particularly over any length of time, on people who are out of the work force. So $300m has been allocated across Australia for the community employment program. I notice that the first allocation of money has gone through to South Australia in the last day or so. The program is particularly addressed to providing people with experience of work and the possibility that at some time in the future they will have access to more permanent employment. I suspect that the program creates some degree of optimism for these people. The education policy specifically addresses itself to requirements for women. The policy is concerned with participation and equity and addresses itself to the needs of youngsters at school. It particularly notices that, although the retention rate of girls at secondary schools has improved over the last few years, that retention rate does not flow on into tertiary institutions in anything like the same percentages for young men. So much work is still needed to be done to encourage young women to exercise their options about further education and the Government has addressed itself specifically to that aim. There has been a return to the original guidelines of the Schools Commission with an emphasis on priority funding on a needs basis. The Tertiary Education Commission specifically addressed itself to the need for priority to be given to women as well as to other minority or disadvantaged groups. This Government unashamedly has policies and programs to try to combat discrimination and provide equal access for women into education facilities at all levels. The Schools Commission national projects program to improve educational outcomes for girls has been more than doubled and will provide a quarter of a million dollars in 1984. There has also been some increase in the allowances for students at the tertiary level. Again, as women tend to be amongst the poorer and disadvantaged people, those things will advantage them. I am appreciative that I have almost used the time available to me in this debate. I would like to conclude by commenting that as far as I am concerned this Government in the Budget has taken to heart its promises for care and concern in real ways for the security of us all. Our Budget re-affirms that stance. It is in line with other actions by this Government. I particularly refer to the appointment of an ambassador for disarmament. It is something that the women of Australia are very heartened by. I also know that men in Australia are heartened by that too, but women's involvement in actions for peace in our world is widely known. They take heart from this Government's initiative. They can see this Government's commitment to women having equal opportunity in jobs, finance, security and a real place in Australia's society. This Budget reinforces those attitudes and legislation with real dollar gains for so many women in Australia. It is a Budget to be proud of. I commend it to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Robertson) adjourned. Debate resumed from 13 September 1983, on motion by Senator Button: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(9.02) —It is not the practice of the Liberal Party of Australia to oppose Government legislation on principle. It is our practice, as a responsible Opposition, to look at each piece of legislation and, where appropriate, not to oppose legislation which we believe is either proper or is part of the Government's essential program. The Broadcasting Stations Licence Fees Amendment Bill and the Television Stations Licence Fees Amendment Bill, which we are now considering, are revenue measures. They are part of the Government's revenue program. It is not the intention of the Opposition to oppose these Bills. We believe this is a proper course for a responsible Opposition to take. I will speak only briefly and make a few comments about the Bills and about some of the features which have caused concern in the industry and need to be brought out here. Because the amounts of money being collected are considerable these are not merely cost recovery measures. They are not merely attempts to raise from the industry amounts to cover the cost of money spent on behalf of that industry. They are, in fact, revenue measures designed by government to boost its revenues for general purposes. The legislation increases the maximum percentage on gross earnings of both television and broadcasting stations which can be charged for licence fee purposes. The Bills actually propose an increase of one-half or one per cent on the gross earnings of stations. The percentage for television stations will now be 8 per cent instead of the previous figure of 7.5 per cent. For radio stations it will be 5 1/2 per cent instead of the previous figure of 5 per cent. It is worth putting on record that both the industry associations-that is, the Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations and the Federation of Australian Radio Broadcasters-oppose the increases. That should be part of the public debate. The fees are based on a percentage of gross receipts and not on net profits. This means that, in fact, there may be some disadvantages to the stations where their gross earnings do not reflect their real earnings. It may, in fact, not always be possible for the stations to meet these increased licence charges without suffering some net detriment. We can understand that the industry is concerned about this. The fee structure may also ignore the fact that many commercial radio stations in particular are not operating profitably at this time and the new fee structure may be an imposition upon them. Further, the increase from 5 per cent to 5 1/2 per cent represents a very considerable jump, if one looks at it as a percentage of what the level was previously. Similarly, the jump from 7 1/2 per cent to 8 per cent is fairly considerable. In both cases the increases are well above either the previous or the projected rates of inflation in Australia. The industry is concerned about that. This is only one of the areas in the communications portfolio where the Government has attempted to gain extra revenue. I simply mention the 25 per cent increase in radio communication licence fees which has been imposed. It is worth recalling the extra $100m tax impost on Telecom Australia which, of course, is a particularly financially successful statutory authority of the Commonwealth. One wonders the extent to which the Government will pursue revenue raising as opposed to cost recovery in its approach to communications generally in Australia. Having said all that, I come back to my first point. This is part of the Government's revenue program. Whatever our reservations might be, and whether we would do things differently as to quantum may be another question, because it is part of the Government's program and because it is not our intention now or ever to oppose all Government legislation as a matter of course , I indicate that the Opposition will not be opposing these measures. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(9.07) —The Australian Democrats support the Broadcasting Stations Licence Fees Amendment Bill and the Television Stations Licence Fees Amendment Bill, essentially for the same reasons as those espoused by Senator Peter Baume on behalf of the Liberal Party of Australia. We have been approached by the same organisations. We have sympathy with those organisations in their view that a government should raise additional revenue in this area by way of legislation rather than by regulation. We raised with the Government the idea that perhaps the legislation should be withdrawn or amended so that the additional revenue would be raised by way of legislation, so that if a government of the day wanted additional revenue out of broadcasting it had to go to the Parliament and say: 'This is another Bill. Give us permission to enact it'. Rather than dealing with the matter by way of regulation, that proposition appealed to us. In our inquiries we were shocked to find how many ways in which a government of the day, irrespective of its political persuasion, can raise additional moneys simply by way of regulation. I can recall during the halcyon days when I was a Liberal that Sir Robert Menzies wrote a pamphlet called 'Government by Regulation'. I think that sometimes it is good for those of us who are still in parliament and politics to realise how much executive governments or Cabinets can do by way of regulations, without reference to the Parliament. The power to disallow regulations is one of the precious things that we have in this Senate. Admittedly, the House of Representatives has similar powers but, for some reason , it does not seem to take as keen an interest in the disallowance of regulations as we senators of all persuasions do in the Senate. Several Senate committees deal with the matter. The fact that we do have these mechanisms in the Senate provides the individual with a great protection. I simply say that the Democrats support these Bills. We express some hesitation about the way in which this money is being realised. I have been approached by the organisations which Senator Baume mentioned. Senator Jessop has taken an extraordinary interest in this matter. He also raised it with me on a personal level and I confided my concern to him. Senator JESSOP(South Australia)(9.10) —I support Senator Chipp's concern about the raising of revenue by regulation rather than by legislation. I recall that last year, when the Fraser Government was in control of the treasury bench, I raised this matter with my colleague Senator Peter Baume. At that time television licence fees were raised by, in some cases, 3,000 per cent by means of a regulatory measure to which I objected. I took the matter up on behalf of the industry and with the complete co-operation of Senator Peter Baume and the head of the Department of Communications at that time. The Minister for Communications at that time, Mr Neil Brown, recognised that there was an anomaly and that revenue should not be raised by regulation in this manner but ought to be raised as a result of a specific Act of Parliament. I remember that on that occasion the Hon. Neil Brown asked Senator Peter Baume to make that point in his reply in the Senate. Senator Peter Baume said that it was the intention of the then Minister to bring in an Act of Parliament just to put this particular matter into order. I was alarmed when I heard Senator Chipp say earlier that the reason why the Government was not going to do it was that there are other areas where this sort of method of raising revenue is employed. Senator Chipp —Including income tax. Senator JESSOP —Exactly. I think it is bad. It is a very serious indictment on Government. It was a serious indictment on the Fraser Government. I would have thought that the so-called progressive Labor Government would have recognised the point that was raised by Senator Chipp in his letter to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Communications, Senator Button. I would have thought that the Minister would have recognised the anomaly and would have brought in or agreed to bring in an Act of Parliament so that the Senate and the House of Representatives could subject the Government's action in these matters to scrutiny and protect the industries concerned against excessive increases in fees. Incidentally, at the time to which I refer last year, the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills cast doubts on this way of raising revenue. I think it questioned the constitutionality of the whole thing. I believe it could be in breach of the Constitution. I suggest that the Government look at this matter again. If there are other areas where revenue is being raised by regulation in, I suggest, an improper way, that situation ought to be corrected. I am very grateful for Senator Chipp's contribution in this matter. Senator Chipp —There is an argument that by regulation you have greater flexibility. Senator JESSOP —Sure. That really brings the whole matter into question. If there is greater flexibility for governments to impose heavier penalties on an industry in any area, we should look at that situation. I remember that some years ago-Senator Peter Baume has reminded me of it-we as a government introduced a limited capacity for government to impose greater penalties on industry. I think that if that sort of attitude were adopted it could be acceptable to the Opposition and to the Australian Democrats. The Federation of Australian Commercial Television Stations has approached me, as it has other senators. It has raised a number of points. Firstly, tax imposed under the Television Stations Licence Fees Act is based on gross earnings and not profitability. Consequently, the amount paid by stations increases each year by at least the same rate as market growth. Also, some stations move to new higher plateaus of licence fees according to increases in revenue. Senator Withers —What does that mean? Senator JESSOP —This is a phoney attempt to raise revenue on the basis of gross earnings and not profitability. That point ought to be made. The second point is that the effect of the proposed amendment will be that all licensees with gross earnings in excess of $10m a year will be required to pay a substantially higher fee. This will be caused by a combination of four points: Firstly, a significant increase in the formula of last year; secondly, the growth in revenue; thirdly, the proposed change in formula; and, fourthly, in some cases, because of the 6.7 per cent increase in the ceiling. Senator Chipp —This Government learned that technique from the Lend Lease Corporation. Senator JESSOP —That would not surprise me, Senator Chipp. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Coleman) —Order! Senator Jessop, I think you might assist the Chair at least if you would direct your remarks through me and have your private conversation later. Senator JESSOP —I believe you are quite in order in drawing my attention to that , Madam Acting Deputy President. But the third point I want to make is that the burden of this increase will fall on the metropolitan stations, the major commissioners of high cost Australian drama, variety, sport and new programs. The fourth point is that, in the case of the Adelaide market, the variation to the fee structure will impose an additional burden of approximately $80,000 in total this year on the licensees. In Sydney the equivalent increase will approach $1m this year. Another point that ought to be considered is that an undertaking was given by the previous Government, when it substantially increased the same fees last year , that the new formula would remain constant for a period of at least three years. This Television Stations Licence Fees Amendment Bill sweeps aside that arrangement, which is unfortunate. Government policy, as enunciated at the National Economic Summit Conference and which has been so proudly broadcast and publicised throughout Australia, was to stabilise charges in an endeavour to encourage employment opportunities. The proposed changes contradict that policy quite emphatically. The Australian Labor Party policy is to seek high levels of Australian content in programs. I am sure that Senator Withers, being a Western Australian, which State in recent times proudly won the America's Cup, would appreciate the importance of Australian content. The ALP policy is to seek high levels of Australian content. Currently, the television industry is expending well over 50 per cent of its revenue on the production of Australian programs. The level of Australian content has never been higher. The imposition of increased fees shows no recognition of the responsible attitude being adopted by the industry in the face of the high risk nature of producing Australian content, a venture which employs Australian people. Senator Tate —Who wrote this? Senator JESSOP —I wrote it myself and I am proud of it. It is obviously pricking Senator Tate's conscience because he is listening to it. I am glad that the honourable senator from Tasmania is doing so. Senator Withers —Who is that? Senator JESSOP —Not many people have heard of him. Speaking of Australian content, it was interesting to note that on 23 August Mr Duffy issued a Press statement relating to this Act. He announced, among other things, that as an offset to licence fee increases the Government would consider proposals to encourage the production of Australian television programs. At a time when Australian content is running at an all-time high level, the Government is placing these impositions on the industry. I am sure that Senator Withers would have viewed the Channel 9 programs Waterloo Station, Kings, Starting and Taurus Rising. Senator Withers —No. Senator JESSOP —He said no; that is quite right because the Australian public rejected those four programs. Channel 9 did not get the ratings. It cost Channel 9 about $10m or less to produce those four Australian programs with which it is now saddled. These programs contained the Australian content that we all believe ought to be promoted but they failed to meet with public approval. So we are now imposing upon television channels in Sydney $1m of extra fees per year which is equal to a one-half per cent rise. That does not sound very much but many businesses in Australia work on far less than that in order to keep afloat in the current recession. Senator Withers —What about that new movie known as Early Release? Senator JESSOP —I am not sure who is making this speech but I think my colleague is out of his seat and I think he is out of order in intruding into and interrupting my speech. Madam Acting Deputy President, I ask you to protect me against this invasion by my colleague. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Coleman) —Senator Jessop, you have the floor and the Chair protects you. Senator Withers —What about Early Release instead of Prisoner? Senator JESSOP —I was talking about the importance of the Australian content in Australian television and the fact that it employs Australians. I think, at a time when the profitability of the television industry is decreasing, we ought to have regard to that. It is decreasing due to the adverse economic climate and the escalating cost of the Australian content. I think it is inappropriate to impose a significant additional burden which is implicit in this Bill because I think it will result in the industry having to reduce expenditure which, in turn , will adversely affect the service provided to the Australian public. Further, I understand the Government is about to announce decisions regarding the introduction of new technologies and services. Increases in licence fees weaken the industry's ability to absorb this impact. Where appropriate, the industry is anxious to increase its technological capacity, but I believe that the measure we are considering will inhibit the capacity of the industry to do that and maintain also, at the same time, high levels of Australian content. I think the Government ought to re-examine the whole question that we raised earlier. Senator Chipp made mention of it with respect to raising revenue in this way. The Government ought to consider the whole question of introducing legislation to deal with matters that raise revenue in this way rather than by regulation because only in that way can the Parliament of Australia deal with it appropriately and prevent unnecessary impositions being placed on the industries of Australia. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(9.25) —I should like to join with Senator Chipp and Senator Jessop in voicing some concern about the way in which these fees and royalties have been added to the costs of broadcasting interests throughout this country. The imposition of a royalty applies not only to television interests. Across the whole spectrum of licence fees a royalty has been imposed. Press release No. 77 of 1983 by the Minister for Communications, Mr Duffy, states: Mr Duffy said that in former years fees were levied on a cost recovery basis. But as part of the overall 1983-84 Budget strategy the Government had made a decision to exercise its option under the Radiocommunications Licence Fees Act 1982 and include a royalty component in the fee structure. There is some real doubt as to whether such an action is constitutional, and whether it should be done by regulation is very doubtful. In my view such an action should be done by statute. It should be brought before the Parliament and Parliament should give permission, as Senator Chipp and Senator Jessop both said . I am not about to move for the disallowance of these regulations. The Government has to raise a lot of money to cover its expenses for this year. Its deficit is huge and we all know that it has to raise money in every possible way it can. In fact, Mr Duffy, referring to these regulations, said in that same Press release: . . . $21.5 million would be collected in radiocommunications licence fees in 1983-84. The royalty component of this figure was about $4 million. That is a fair sized impost to make by way of regulation. Senator Chipp said earlier that he found quite a list of these revenue raising regulations. I would be only too pleased to see a list of such regulations. Senator Chipp —Even income tax rates. Senator TOWNLEY —As Senator Chipp said, even income tax rates can be increased by regulation. I think that is unsatisfactory. It is time this Parliament or maybe a committee of the Senate prepared a list of revenue raising regulations. We should look at the matter and ensure that the Parliament has some control. I do not believe in running the country by regulation. We cannot have a situation in which-- Senator Chipp —Sir Robert Menzies said it could be done. Senator TOWNLEY —Sir Robert Menzies may have said it could be done, but why on earth should we allow a situation in which a regulation can be brought in when Parliament is in recess and may not sit for several months? Senator Chipp —Until Parliament meets you cannot unscramble the egg. Senator TOWNLEY —Exactly. If a regulation is imposed during a recess there is no way of forcing the Government to give back any revenue it may collect during that time. It is entirely wrong. It is entirely contrary to our way of operating in this country. Senator Jessop —It is not democratic. Senator TOWNLEY —It is not constitutional and, as Senator Jessop said, it is not democratic. In fact, there are a lot of things going on that are not democratic. Senator Withers said a moment ago that there is a new program in New South Wales for the early release of prisoners. Maybe that is a scheme which a lot of people in this country will watch over the next few months. Two wrongs do not make a right. Senator Chipp —Many wrongs do not make a right. Senator TOWNLEY —As Senator Chipp said, many wrongs do not make a right. Senator Chipp —No, Arthur Calwell said that. Senator TOWNLEY —Maybe it is time we followed what was stated in Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 10 which in part relates to the Radiocommuniations ( Frequency Reservation Certificate Tax) Bill. That Alert Digest states: The Committee draws this clause to the attention of Senators in that such an uncontrolled right to levy taxes by regulation may be considered to be an inappropriate delegation of legislative power. That was stated by a committee of this Parliament. The members of that Committee are Senator Tate from Tasmania, who was here earlier, Senator Missen, Senator Bolkus, Senator Crowley, Senator Durack, and Senator Haines who is here now. Senator Chipp —What an outstanding group. Senator TOWNLEY —Well, it is a very good group. Senator Haines —Its average IQ is at least double figures. Senator TOWNLEY —I am informed that the total intelligence quotient is at least double figures. Senator Macklin —That is the average. Senator TOWNLEY —I am sorry, the average. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Coleman) —Order! Senator Townley, please bring yourself back to the Bill before the chamber and address your remarks through the Chair. Then I think we would all be satisfied. Senator TOWNLEY —Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. I am sure you would agree with me that that group is a very informed group in our Parliament, having people from virtually every State and every walk of life. I think it is time this Parliament paid attention to what they said in that report. I believe that one other report, the seventh report in May 1982 of the Senate Standing Committee on the Scrutiny of Bills, also mentions something along those lines. I hope that the Government will pay some attention to what I have said and that the Senate will set up a committee to look at the ways in which revenue is raised by way of regulation. I would be only too pleased to be part of such a committee. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.31) —I have listened to a couple of speakers from the Opposition side and I am mystified as to why they paid so much attention to denouncing the practice of increasing revenue or charges by regulation. There seems to be some confusion in the minds of some of the people on the other side regarding the charges which were increased by regulation under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1905 and the charges for broadcasting and television station licence fees which are being increased by the legislation before the Senate. I fail to see the relevance of a good deal of what has been said on the other side to the Broadcasting Stations Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1983 and the Television Stations Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1983, which are actually before us. The point has been made, and made correctly, that these charges are levied on gross income and not on profits. I note the point, and I will come back to it in a minute, that some valid criticisms can be made on those grounds. However, there has been a considerable change apparently in Opposition thinking on this matter in the last two years because when charges were substantially increased in 1981 the then Minister for Communications, Mr Sinclair, said correctly: Licence fees are calculated on the basis of gross earnings of stations . . . He went on to say: The area of the licence determines the size of the market and, to a large degree, the gross earnings. It was felt, therefore, that the criterion- I interpolate that that was the criterion of levying charges in accordance with gross income and indeed at an escalating rate- has a very real relevance to the extent to which an individual station can be called on to pay a higher fee. The point he was making there was that there is some correlation, indeed quite a high correlation, between the absolute amount of revenue gained by a station and the degree of profitability. Granted it is not a perfect correlation, but evidently some members of the Opposition have travelled to Damascus since 1981 and have come to realise that if a royalty or rent component is to be included in these charges- Senator Chipp —Are you holding up Ian Sinclair as an authority? Senator WALSH —No, he was speaking for the government of the day at the time. To the degree to which these charges do levy a royalty or a tax on economic rent, whichever one would like to see, it is arguably an imperfect tax. I think it was Sir Reginald Ansett who said many years ago that a licence to conduct a television station was a licence to print money. Senator Withers —Lord Thomson of Fleet. Senator WALSH —Lord Thomson of Fleet said that, did he? I think Reginald Ansett might have repeated it. Lord Thomson may have originated it. The point he was making was that if restricted entry into any business is really effective-that is, if it succeeds in keeping out a large number of potential new entrants- inevitably some rent income will accrue to whoever happens to hold the licence. Contrary to Senator Townley's apparent belief, I suggest it is quite proper for at least some of that rent component which accrues to the holder of a licence to be taxed by the State. Whether it is appropriate to do that by way of a licence fee positively correlated to the aggregate income received by the station or in some technically superior way is perhaps another question. I note that the Opposition in the Senate is not pursuing the amendment which was moved in the House of Representatives by Mr Lloyd and which essentially criticised the Government for increasing these fees beyond the point of cost recovery. That is in accord with the sentiments which seem to have been expressed by Senator Townley, and that is that there is a royalty component in these charges, as indeed there has been for a considerable time. Senator Townley seems to believe, as the Opposition in the House of Representatives appparently believed and showed in the amendment it moved, that there ought to be no charge of a royalty type on the economic rent which accrues to the holder of a television licence. That is not a view which the Government accepts. We believe it is quite proper, as indeed the present Opposition parties agreed when they were in government, to apply a tax in some form or other to that rent component. However, I note that the Opposition, in spite of those criticisms, is not opposing the Bills. I do not intend to delay their passage any longer. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time, and passed through their remaining stages without amendment or debate. Debate resumed from 20 September, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bill be now read a first time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.39) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill provides for an amendment to the Barley Research Levy Act 1980 to give effect to decisions taken by the Government when framing the 1983 Budget. The effect of the amendment will be to increase the maximum rate of levy payable under the Act from 20c to 50c per tonne. The rate of levy effective from 1 October 1983 however will be 30c per tonne compared with 20c at present. The levy applies to all barley delivered by a grower to another person, unless that person is storing it on the grower's behalf. The amendments contained in this Bill are in response to a submission from the Australian Wheatgrowers' Federation and a recognition that continuing increases in the cost of research have eroded the real value of levy collections. In accepting the Australian Wheatgrowers' Federation's submission, the Government has recognised the need to increase productivity in grain production so that Australia remains competitive on world markets. We also need to be able to meet the increasingly exacting quality characteristics required by purchasers of barley. This requires increased research especially in such areas as improved crop varieties and cropping systems and disease control. The recent drought severely reduced the funds available for research in 1983-84 and it has been necessary to curtail essential work in a number of areas. Reserve funds maintained by the five State Barley Industry Research Committees and the Barley Industry Research Council have been largely exhausted in maintaining ongoing research programs. The Commonwealth matches industry contributions on a dollar for dollar basis and the Bill reflects the importance the Government places on the need for continued research into significant issues facing the graingrowing industries. The new levy will enable present levels of barley research to continue, assist the industry to increase its productivity and maintain Australia's competitiveness on world markets. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Senator COLLARD(Queensland)(9.40) —The Opposition will not oppose the Barley Research Levy Amendment Bill 1983. Very briefly, the purpose of the Bill is to raise the levy from 20c a tonne to 30c a tonne. I think it should be known that this is at the request of the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation. It will be matched on a dollar for dollar basis by the Commonwealth Government. I think it is important that research into our crops is kept up. It is significant that one of the reasons for the suggested increase was the low tonnage of the 1982-83 crop, brought about by the drought. It has meant that the pool of money which is normally there for research has basically dried up. Therefore, the industry has come to the Government with the suggestion that this increase be made. It is ironical that, as I indicated, the pool has dried up as a result of the drought which affected the 1982-83 crop, when one of the researches which is always going on in our great rural industry is into crops which can be more drought resistant. The increase levy will undoubtedly aid that research as well as research into diseases, the minimal use for maximum benefit of fertilisers, and all those things that help make our great rural industries more efficient. I think the public should be aware that this does not benefit only the farmer. Of course, it is of a benefit to him but it obviously flows on through the community as better prices are received for our crops. We have only to look at the recent serious downturn in industries associated with the rural industry brought about as a result of the drought. There was a compounding effect in that farmers were not buying machinery, plant, fences and so forth, thus creating a ripple effect right through to the manufacturing and service industries. I think it would be timely to remind the people of Australia that when rural Australia hurts, all Australia hurts. In this instance, we have had industry coming to the Government suggesting an increase in the levy to enable further research to be done to help our barley industry with drought resistant strains, disease resistant strains and generally to help the industry to produce a better crop, thus having the effect of a flow- on to the betterment of the whole community. As I said, the Opposition does not oppose this legislation. We wish it a speedy passage. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(9.42) —The Australian Democrats support the Barley Research Levy Amendment Bill 1983, despite some initial reservations. As has already been stated by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) in the second reading speech, the Bill provides for an amendment to the Barley Research Levy Act. The effect of the amendment will be to increase from 1 October 1983 the rate of levy to 30c a tonne. This is an increase of 100 per cent since the levy was first introduced in 1980, a period of less than three years. This enormous increase is at the request of the affected industry itself, that is, the barley producers by way of their representative group, the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation. Because of this, the Australian Democrats will not oppose the Bill. In our discussions in relation to this Bill with the relevant representative groups-we have contacted not only the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation but also the Barley Industry Research Council and the five State barley industry research committees. The gist of the discussions is basically that the recent drought has severely reduced the funds for barley research in 1983-84. As a result of this reduction in the funds collected by the levy, there would have to have been a curtailment of essential research work in a number of vital areas. It was therefore proposed by the barley producers that the only way to find the ongoing research was by increasing the levy. On the contrary, we believe that if one looks at the commitment of government in Australia to research in the primary industry area one sees that it shares something in common with our support for research right across the board. In terms of comparable nations, we are excessively poor and there is excessively meagre provision in terms of the way in which governments in Australia support research in our basic industries. One would have hoped that the Government, rather than at this time immediately accepting the submission of the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation for an increase in levy-given the extreme hardship caused to the rural industry by recent droughts and floods-may have been able to look at its total research commitment and, in line with the various statements made in the runup to the recent election, would have sought to start to rectify the inadequacies of the previous Government's funding policies. There could have been an increase in the Government's commitment to basic research in primary production and particularly, because we are discussing this Bill, in barley research. Consequently, while not wishing to commend the Bill, we assure the Government of our support. In the meantime we hope that the Government will look at its commitment in this and other areas so that in future years we do not necessarily see a never-ending string of Bills providing for an escalating cost of the order that we have seen in the past three years in relation to barley research. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(9.47) —The Opposition supports the Barley Research Levy Amendment Bill, the purpose of which is to amend the Barley Research Act 1980. The operation of the Bill is to match dollar for dollar the contributions made by the Government and the industry, and at this juncture at the request of the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation to raise the levy from 20c a tonne to 30c a tonne. It must be remembered that 1982-83 was a very bad drought year the effect of which was to reduce the crops severely and, accordingly, the amount of funds available for research in 1983-84. The tonnages over the last few years were: In 1980-81, 2.7 million tonnes; in 1981-82, 3.5 million tonnes; in 1982-83 , 1.8 million tonnes; and in 1983-84 it is estimated to be 4 million tonnes. But the drop from 3.5 million tonnes to 1.8 million tonnes effectively halved the revenue from the levy and, as such, completely depleted the funds that were available for the following year. Tasmania, of course, is not a major grain growing State, but barley is the main grain grown in that State. In a normal year, the Tasmanian crop averages about 2 tonnes to the hectare, which is about 50 per cent above the national average. It is expected that this year a sowing of about 13,000 hectares will produce about a 26 kilotonne crop. I am happy to say that a substantial proportion of that crop is used by a highly respected producer of a very famous amber fluid. Besides that, its main purpose is to produce superior bacon and pork. About a quarter of Tasmania is still experiencing drought conditions, so the full capacity of what might have been grown this year will not be achieved. In fact, I had hoped a while ago to be able to declare an interest as a grower; but, unfortunately, I will not be growing any barley this year, so that situation does not arise. It was expected in Tasmania this year that about another 7,500 hectares of barley would be sown to replace the pea crop, a substantial proportion of which was cancelled at a very late stage. But it does not appear that the necessary quota will be available, so that will not be achieved either. As with any of these other productions, I believe that industry should make contributions, as should the community generally. Barley is very much a world crop. There is a substantial trading of barley. Our export sales, as usual, fix our domestic price very considerably. In other words, our internal wage and costs structures act against our exporters in this commodity, as they do with others. It is not unreasonable that it should be acknowledged that those who achieve the benefits from the system under which we operate should also be expected to make some contribution through the national economy towards funding it. Research is vitally important. At all times it needs to be considered that what we are trying to achieve is better yields, improved disease resistance, economies of fertiliser and irrigation, higher standard equipment for cultivation, and for planting, harvesting and storing; and of course, barley, besides that, is a very great rotational crop, with many others in the various States. The Barley Industry Research Council meets twice yearly and reviews its projects in a manner that I could recommend to any other similar bodies. Its report mentions the sort of studies that it undertakes. It is desirable that we should look to see what it covers. I should like briefly to run over a few of these. The development of techniques for screening barley for resistance to scald disease received a grant. It covers studies of the host parasite interaction in the technology of breeding barley for resistance to scald; the development of a standardised test for assessing susceptibility of barley cultivators to barley yellow dwarf virus; a study of the developmental physiology of barley grain from fertilisation to germination; reseach into the stress metabolism of barley. So it goes on, with research into the soils, the nutritions, the fertilisers, the quality, the weeds, plant breeding, agronomy, biometrics, rodents, and all the other things that go with the operation of the barley industry. I believe that the way that the Council does its investigations and the programs that it sets up are first class and are most necessary to the continuing improvement of the barley industry. The total expenditure in 1981-82 was $531,298. As I have said already, the very short year in production has meant that the volume of money available for research was correspondingly much lower than it had been in the previous year. I think that we should also take into account the fact that the Balderstone Working Group, in 'Agricultural Policy: Issues and options for the 1980s', on page 119, at paragraph 9.30, says: Overall, the group believes that agricultural research funding should be increased and that increased expenditure should be concentrated on applied research. The benefits producers derive from research justify an increase in their proportionate contribution to research funding. The Commonwealth should also significantly increase its overall funding of agricultural research. The Group considers that research is an appropriate area for providing assistance to raise farmer incomes on the grounds discussed in Chapter 4. That is very important, because it is far better that we should support the concept of providing assistance to increase productivity and increase profit than it is to do this by handouts and in other ways. So this is exactly what assistance with research can do and should do. In May 1983 the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation also produced what I consider to be a very fine discussion paper called 'Getting the Most from the Research Dollar'. The sections I found most interesting were sections 6 and 7 which covered the questions of who decides the research priorities and who should undertake that research. It is very good to see these matters being dealt with so objectively. On page 10, under the heading 'Accountability and Review', the Federation goes into the matter quite thoroughly. It states: Every research project which is funded should specify: (i) why the project is proposed (that is, the problem which the project is seeking to resolve must be defined clearly); (ii) what is hoped to be achieved; (iii) how the project will proceed; and (iv) how long the project will take. It goes on: The review process is considered to be of vital importance for a number of reasons: (i) to make the researchers aware that their professional work will be the subject of the scrutiny of those who fund their work; (ii) to make researchers aware that they are accountable to those who fund their work; (iii) to enable those who fund the projects to re-assess the relevance of particular projects prior to completion against the original objectives of the projects and changed research priorities; (iv) based on (iii), to enable those who fund research to make decisions on whether research projects should continue, be terminated, or be amended prior to completion; and (v) to facilitate the setting of priorities for subsequent research projects. I find that a very orderly and satisfying approach. Barley, Australia-wide, is a very important crop. There is still great potential for improvement in the industry. The industry is certainly in good hands at present. I recommend its research and goals. I support the Bill. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(9.56) —in reply-It has been generally agreed by all speakers that, firstly, it is appropriate that the industry make a contribution; and, secondly, it is appropriate that the Government make some matching contribution, which just happens to be a matching dollar for dollar contribution. That is also the view of the Government and I do not intend to delay the passage of the Barley Research Levy Amendment Bill 1983 any longer. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without requests or debate. Debate resumed from 24 August 1983, on motion by Senator Grimes: That the Bills be now read a second time. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(9.59) —The Ombudsman Amendment Bill 1983 and the Ombudsman (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1983 make important and quite extensive, but I believe non-controversial, amendments to the Ombudsman Act. They arise out of experience with the operation of that Act since the original Bill was passed by the Parliament in 1976 and as a result of the establishment of the office of Ombudsman and the appointment of Professor Richardson some six years ago. That was an important initiative of the former Government, the Fraser Government. It was part of a considerable package of legislation covering the establishment of new procedures in the administrative review area. We saw the establishment of the Ombudsman and, in 1976, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal , and the passage of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act and the Freedom of Information Act. As a whole, I think, these procedures have had a major impact in widening very extensively the rights of the citizen in his dealings with the bureaucracy. Certainly the passage of the Ombudsman Act and the appointment of the Ombudsman and his experience over these years has been a notable feature of those major reforms. There have been major improvements in the rights of the citizen. Appropriately, the role of the Ombudsman and the operation of the Act was review by the Administrative Review Council. The Council made a report in 1980 about the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. The Administrative Review Council is also part of that initiative to which I have referred and is one of the centrepieces of the whole process of administrative review and reform which, as I have said, was a major policy of the Fraser Government. The Administrative Review Council, as its name implies, is the major advisory body for the Government in regard to this whole area. It has made a number of important reports, many of which have been implemented. As I have said, one of the major purposes of this legislation is to implement the report of the Administrative Review Council on the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. Substantially, this legislation was introduced by Mr Fife, the relevant Minister in the Fraser Government last year. Some additional amendments have been included by the present Government. So it is a bipartisan matter. Indeed, support for the Ombudsman and the entire system of administrative review has been largely a bipartisan matter, although there have been some very sharp differences of view in respect of some aspects of it, in particular those relating to freedom of information. The Bills before us, as I said, are not just machinery Bills, although substantially they are certainly non-controversial and deal with what might be described as machinery matters. Nevertheless, some of them are very important indeed. For one thing, the legislation clarifies a matter which has been the subject of quite a deal of dispute although it is not, in my view, one which should have been in doubt because of the very clear policy of the Ombudsman Act. There was doubt as to how far the Ombudsman could investigate the material on which Ministers made their decisions and actions taken to implement such decisions. The legislation makes it quite clear, as was certainly always the intention, that the Ombudsman would have the power to investigate the machinery by which Ministers were advised, even though-and it is one of the principal features and policy of the Ombudsman Act-the Ombudsman cannot investigate the actual decisions of the Minister himself. Another important matter which has been included in this legislation is a method of resolving disputes which regretfully, although perhaps not surprisingly, arise between the Ombudsman and agencies that he is investigating and even heads of departments. There have been occasions when quite bitter disputes have arisen between the Ombudsman and a head of a department. This legislation provides the machinery for the jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Australia to be invoked in order to resolve such disputes. One other very important provision in these Bills gives statutory force to the position of the Defence Force Ombudsman. Indeed, a new Deputy Ombudsman position is created for that purpose. Although there has been a Defence Force Ombudsman, he now has statutory rights and status provided in this legislation. There are some exceptions to the role that the Ombudsman will have in regard to the Defence Force which I think take account of the situation of members in the command structure of the Defence Force. He will not be able to investigate matters of discipline. He will also have to desist from investigating a complaint for a period, I think, of up to 30 days to enable the complaint at least to be dealt with in the ordinary way. Then, if the matter is not resolved within the ordinary command structure he may then commence to investigate it. He is also precluded from investigating questions of giving honours or awards to members of the Defence Force. Again, I think that is consistent with the particular role of the members of the Defence Force. One matter, I think, is left to decide in this legislation. It has been pointed out by my colleague Mr Sinclair in another place. It is certainly a matter in which I had some experience when I was Attorney-General. It concerns provisions contained in Defence Force regulations for application for a redress of grievance to be made to the Governor-General. The procedure, of course, is like that for all other matters which go to the Governor-General-in-Council. Decisions are to be made on the advice of the Minister-in this case, the Minister for Defence. Yet there is undoubtedly an expectation that the Governor- General-in-Council is acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, whereas the reality is that he must act on the advice of the Minister or those close to him, such as his advisers, who are perhaps the very people against whom the redress of grievance procedure is really brought. Although there has been a well-established procedure for the Governor-General- in-Council to deal with these matters-certainly there is provision for a hearing at which the Attorney-General is present and the Council perhaps receives his advice as well-nevertheless, it is basically a most unsatisfactory procedure. It is not in any way consistent with the development over recent years of administrative review in the very elaborate and sophisticated manner which I have mentioned. I think that is still a matter that needs attention. I do not suggest that it is necessarily the Ombudsman who will provide the solution to it , although that might be one method. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal is obviously another possible candidate for the review of this type of grievance. However, I mention that because in my experience it has given concern to at least one Governor-General and certainly to some Ministers. I was particularly interested to notice that my colleague Mr Sinclair, a former Minister for Defence, saw fit to refer to it in another place. I think it is certainly worth mentioning in this debate. As I have indicated, the Opposition supports these measures. I believe they will make some very useful, important and beneficial changes to the Ombudsman legislation and will enhance the value and effectiveness of that office. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(10.10) —I would like to say a few words, likewise in support of this legislation. This is an opportunity to pay some tribute to the work which the Ombudsman, Professor Jack Richardson, has done over the last six years or so. I think Australia has been very well served by ombudsmen both in the State and Federal spheres since the office was instituted in various places. I think it is now operating in all parts of Australia. I believe that Professor Richardson has performed his job very well. I am a former chairman of the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. That Committee had the opportunity at various times both in dealing with the reports the Ombudsman made and having him before it to discuss problems which arose in regard to his jurisdiction. I am glad that there has been a very thorough survey of the role of the Ombudsman and that the recommendations of the Administrative Review Council are now being put into effect. The working paper which the Council prepared is very elaborate and thorough. A number of things in the Ombudsman Amendment Bill will be helpful to the Ombudsman, not only the matters which were referred to by Senator Durack but also the provisions in the Bill to ensure that there is a minimum of formality and that resources are properly used in the Ombudsman's work. He will also have the opportunity to publish work and information on current investigations where it is desirable to do so. Other provisions will make easy co-operation with other ombudsmen in dealing with matters of mutual interest. Another matter that Senator Durack also spoke of was the difficulty or doubt which is resolved by this legislation is regard to action which the Ombudsman takes that might be close to a Minister's role in investigations-not of the Minister's action but of the actions which precede or succeed his action. I have always been of the opinion, frankly, that a Minister's actions ought to have been included as one of the matters for investigation and I argued unsuccessfully for this when the original Bill was before the Parliament in 1975 . It is interesting to read in the working paper the reference which is made to the problem in these terms: The explanatory memorandum on the Commonwealth Ombudsman Bill 1976 stated that the exclusion of the actions of Ministers did not exclude the Ombudsman from investigating a recommendation made to a Minister, or action by a Department to give effect to a Minister's decision. However, at p. 42 of his First Annual Report, the Commonwealth Ombudsman refers to an advising to the effect that recommendations to Ministers and implementation of Ministerial decisions may not be investigated by the Ombudsman. Paragraph 146 of that working paper went on to say: It is the Council's view- That is the Review Council-- that the Ombudsman should have jurisdiction in respect of recommendations to Ministers. If it is considered that there is a likelihood that, on the proper construction of the Act, the Ombudsman would not have this jurisdiction, then the Act should be amended to clarify jurisdiction. I am glad that that is being done because I think it would greatly inhibit his role if such doubts about his jurisdiction were to continue to operate. The role of the Ombudsman has expanded already in relation to the Freedom of Information Act and in other areas. I trust that the Ombudsman will be used more extensively in the operation of that Act which will be a matter for debate in this chamber later this week. In passing I refer to the Ombudsman (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1983 which is also before the Senate which brings similar provisions into line relating to complaints concerning the Australian Federal Police Act. I believe it is desirable that we have uniformity. I commend both Bills and wish them a speedy passage. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.15) —The Government expresses its gratitude to Senators Missen and Durack for their complimentary remarks about the Ombudsman Amendment Bill 1983 and the Ombudsman (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1983 and for the support for the Bills on behalf of the Opposition. Professor Richardson has adopted a vigorous and robust approach to his job of keeping governments and public servants who work for them honest and sensitive to public interest considerations. This measure will, among other things, give him further wherewithal to continue that task, not that it is quite as necessary now under the new Government as it was under the old. As a result I express once again my gratitude to the Senate for the obviously speedy passage with which these Bills will now proceed. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills read a second time, and passed through their remaining stages without amendment or debate. Debate resumed from 15 September 1983, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a second time. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(10.18) —The purpose of the Family Law Amendment (Legal Aid Costs) Bill is to enable the Government either to promulgate regulations or to make grants subject to conditions in the family law area, the purpose of which is to ensure that private legal practitioners acting in legally aided matters under the Family Law Act should be bound by an Australia-wide scale of fees. I think it is necessary, in order to understand that, that one should appreciate the rather complicated arrangements that exist at present for the delivery of legal aid throughout Australia. The significance of this proposal is the fact that a very large proportion of legal aid is given in family law matters. A large proportion of that legal aid is provided by the private legal profession and a large amount of legal aid work done by the legal profession is done in family law matters. Broadly, the position is that the previous Government's policy was to dismantle the Australian Legal Aid Office which had been an agency established by the Whitlam Labor Government and to have legal aid delivered by independent statutory bodies established in each State under State legislation with which the Commonwealth would make agreements for substantial funding contributions. The reason for that was to ensure that legal aid would be delivered by independent bodies, that is independent of Government, and administered as close to the clients as possible rather than being delivered by a national government agency substantially administered from Canberra. Unfortunately, that program was not completed. Perhaps the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) in his response might indicate what progress is being made with the States of New South Wales and Tasmania and with the Northern Territory in completing that program. The result, however, is that we now have independent legal aid commissions operating in Western Australia, South Australia, Victoria and Queensland and the old Australian Legal Aid Office still operating in New South Wales, Tasmania and the Northern Territory. In the areas in which the ALAO operates, there has been in place for some time a special legal aid family law scale, whereas each of the States which has its own independent commission has made its own arrangements for scales for legal aid with the private practitioners with which it deals. The Attorney-General in his second reading speech indicated some considerable discrepancies in payments per reference to private legal practitioners in family law matters in respect of the different States, and the general picture is that the expense of providing legal aid in family law matters in those States where the ALAO operates is considerably less than in the States where independent legal aid commissions operate. Admittedly, the total cost of legal aid has been increasing sharply, particularly the cost of payments to the private legal profession for its contribution to the legal aid program. There are many and various factors to be considered. One reason is that there was something of a lag in the fees being paid to legal practitioners in legal aid matters keeping up with increases in the cost of living generally and in the wages and salaries having to be met by legal practitioners. Certainly in recent years there has been a considerable increase in these scales. As I have said, one has to have regard to the dominant position of family law on the legal aid scene. Certainly the Government faces a major problem. It is not a new problem; it is simply a growing problem. It arises largely because of the growing demand for legal aid. The Government has been able to hold down the cost of legal aid in those areas where it has direct administration through the Australian Legal Aid Office. In fact, it was the previous Government that imposed this special scale because it was finding that the funds were insufficient to meet the demands of the people eligible for legal aid, and with the general pattern of financial restraint something had to be done. However, I would have hoped that that was, as far as possible, only a temporary solution. In fact this Bill provides that that should be a general and, by the look of things, a somewhat more permanent solution to the problem. I think this raises some very major matters concerning the long term future of legal aid. The position, as I understand it in the States where there are independent legal aid commissions, is that members of the private legal profession are offered 80 per cent of the normal family law cost scale for legal aid work in family law. I think two points need to be made about that. Firstly, the family law cost scale has been reviewed from time to time by an independent person, namely, Mr Justice Williams, Deputy President of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. As I have said, this scale has been reviewed on several occasions and updated by him. On one occasion other aspects of it were very thoroughly considered by him, and major changes were made as a result of his review. Other reviews have simply tried to keep the quantum of the scale reasonably up to date. I think it is fair to say, however, that that scale has not really been kept completely up to date. I think many members of the legal profession would regard it as out of date and inadequate. As far as legal aid matters are concerned, the States that are presented with the problem to which this Bill addresses itself are paying only 80 per cent of that scale. So even in those States that are said to be raising the problem of cost, the legal profession is by no means greatly advantaged. If anything it is rather severely disadvantaged in legal aid work. Nevertheless, the Government now seeks to provide an even lower scale in these States by virtue of the powers it seeks to obtain under this measure. As I have said, that is based on a special scale which originally was brought in as a temporary measure by the previous Government and unfortunately has remained although it has been increased and changed to some extent when there have been increases in costs generally under the family law cost scales. Nevertheless that is a particularly light payment to those practitioners. This measure is to apply that scale Australia-wide and to replace the existing arrangements for the payment of costs in family law matters in those States that have the independent commissions. The Opposition appreciates the difficulty the Government is facing because of the very considerable demands on legal aid generally at present. These demands have been rapidly growing in recent times. That pressure will undoubtedly be with us for the time being at least. I do not think it is fair that this cost should be so severely borne in the long term by the private legal profession. Certainly I took the view very strongly when I was Attorney-General that the private legal profession had an obligation to do legal aid work on reduced scales of costs, that it had a long and noble tradition of doing legal work for those who could not afford to pay the normal costs. The profession has accepted that responsibility, although perhaps with varying degrees of dedication and certainly, I think it would be fair to say, without any great enthusiasm. Nevertheless, the profession has accepted that undertaking. I am glad that the Attorney-General has indicated in his speech as he has on other occasions that he does see a long term, continuing major role for the private legal profession in the delivery of legal aid. There may be some differences between the present Government and the previous Government or between the present Attorney-General and me in relation to the mix of the private profession and salaried lawyers employed either directly by government or by independent legal aid commissions. Nevertheless, I think there is a fairly broad agreement that both are required and desirable and that they should be long term partners in this very important social policy. The Opposition is not opposed to this measure. However, I think some serious long term problems have to be addressed. The Attorney-General indicated in his second reading speech that some other and rather positive avenues are being explored. I hope they are explored vigorously and perhaps with some success. However, I do not think very tough cost cutting measures are a solution in the long term because they really will be made at the expense of the private practitioners who are prepared to do this work. Although the Attorney-General has said that he does not believe legal aid should be some form of industry assistance for the profession, it is nevertheless true that large numbers of young practitioners in particular have been able to build up their practices by very substantially relying on legal aid work particularly in family law matters. Although it is all very well for some large, well-established firms with a variety of remunerative work to do legal aid work on a shoe string or at substantially reduced fees, such an arrangement would be very hard on those practitioners, a substantial portion, if not the majority, of whose work is under legal aid. When one considers that there is a growing degree of specialisation in the profession-and there is specialisation in family law matters-it becomes doubly hard if those practitioners are kept down by very low scales such as the one that is proposed to operate Australia-wide under this measure. I am sure that members of the legal profession will be prepared to shoulder their responsibility and this burden that they will have to carry. But I do not think that what is proposed in the legislation ought to be looked at as a long term solution. I think in principle the policy that has been followed by the independent legal aid commissions of paying 80 per cent of the normal scale is an ideal that one would like to hope would be the long term solution. But, as I have said, bearing in mind the various Budget problems that now exist, the Opposition certainly does not intend to oppose this measure which the Attorney- General presents as a Budget measure. The Opposition only expresses the hope that other ways of providing solutions to this problem will be found in the long term and that this will be only a temporary solution. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(10.35) —The Australian Democrats will be supporting this legislation-I think with a little more enthusiasm than the Opposition has done-for two primary reasons. The first is that, of course, we support in principle the extension of the availability of legal aid through the community and limiting the cost of that aid. After all, I think anybody with any sort of compassion at all would agree that the purpose of legal aid is to put the protection of the law within the reach of ordinary people, especially those in the lower socio-economic brackets and the lower income groups. It would be petty minded if anyone stood in the way of that extension. I think that too often in the past the legal profession has perhaps been seen as a group of practitioners whose services have been almost entirely restricted to the wealthy sections of the community and, in doing so, that profession has been seen as making access to the protection of the law something relating to income. Of course, that has discriminated against the poor and those who are ignorant of their rights. In the past truth and justice have sometimes seemed to have had very little to do with whether one has had correct treatment at the hands of the law. I am reminded of a comment in Barchester Chronicles in which a reverend gentleman who was approaching with some trepidation a case in which he was involved was told by an erstwhile friend that had he placed the matter in the hands of a good lawyer he would not have heard any more about it. With some indignation and, I think, some justification, he made this retort: If I am dragged before that tribunal, an innocent man, and am falsely declared to be guilty, because I lack money to bribe a lawyer to speak for me, then the laws of this country deserve but little of that reverence which we are accustomed to pay to them. I suggest that anybody who puts forward any idea that legal aid in this country is some form of luxury would be holding the legal processes of this country in some less reverence than they should be held in. The extensive availability of legal aid obviously breaks down the nexus between the wealth of the client and the recourse to protection under the law, and is to be welcomed. Secondly, we support the thrust of the legislation to incorporate the Australian Legal Aid Office's cost scales into family law. These regulations will lower costs and make them uniform throughout Australia. As has already been pointed out by both the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) and the shadow Attorney-General, Senator Durack, there is a wide range from State to State of costs for a family law referral ranging from as high as $858 in Western Australia to $429 in Tasmania. Therefore, I am somewhat concerned at comments made in a submission from the Law Council of Australia regarding this legislation. It states: In presenting this submission to you, the Law Council reaffirms the traditional commitment of Australian lawyers to the assistance of the poorer members of the community and to the right of all to have equality before the law. The Council also recognises the Government's difficulties arising from increasing costs in the legal aid area, particularly in relation to family law matters. It goes on to state: It questions, however, whether the Attorney's aim of reducing legal aid costs will be achieved by the measures proposed in the Bill. It also questions whether , in attempting to achieve those aims, the Attorney does not unreasonably seek to have a legal profession bear the financial consequences of social change in Australia and the community at large suffer the effects of his experimentation for a saving which the Attorney has set at $4 million per annum after three years operation of the new scale. I understand that the Law Council of Australia represents some 20,000 practitioners. On my reckoning that means a sacrifice of in the vicinity of $200 a year per practitioner which, given the average incomes after tax, after deductibility of overheads and various other interesting items that most lawyers can come up with, is not a very great deal indeed compared with the value of the service that they are providing or should be providing to a disadvantaged and underprivileged section of the community. This would seem particulary essential at a time of economic stress since this necessarily places associated stresses on individuals and families which, of course, necessitates additional recourse to legal aid by those people. In supporting this legislation, however, I make it clear that we do not regard it as being either a solution to the heavy expenses and delays incurred in taking action under the Family Law Act or as a solution to the problem of the availability or cost of legal aid. It is neither, simply because there are too many other problems. To begin with, the amount of work to be done by practitioners in the family law area has been increased by the various conciliation techniques imposed in the Family Law Act 1975. In addition, insufficient judges have been appointed to the family law courts to handle the volume of work effectively and efficiently. For example, I am informed that in New South Wales at the moment it takes something like 22 months from the time of an initial application for a custody hearing to come on. This delay, with the resultant multiplicity of interim applications in regard to property or custody matters, has the effect of greatly increasing costs. Of course, this was acknowledged by Senator Gareth Evans in his second reading speech. I hope that the action that he indicates as being necessary is implemented as soon as possible. Finally, we share the belief that the whole area of legal aid needs to be looked at. Senator Gareth Evans, again in his second reading speech, indicated that he is, in fact, initiating a general review of legal aid and the role of the Commonwealth in the delivery of that aid. In our view, the review or inquiry should be established so that it is not just a departmental matter but a thorough and on-going review. I wonder whether the Attorney-General has as yet made any decision about the composition of the review committee and whether he has given any thought to including representatives of client organisations, such as the law reform groups and the Family Law Council, or groups such as the Australian Council of Social Service which represent low income groups, single parents and people involved in family law disputes. I certainly hope that Senator Gareth Evans will be able to give the Senate some idea very quickly of who will be on this inquiry and how deeply it will be allowed to penetrate the present quagmire of legal aid in Australia. In the interim, in the interests of the increasing number of Australian families in need of affordable legal aid, the Australian Democrats support the legislation. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.43) —in reply-I am grateful for the spirit in which the debate has been approached by those who have contributed to it and the recognition of the problems which the Government experiences in this area that has been made by both Senator Durack and Senator Haines. The task confronting governments is, as Senator Haines said, to try to spread the legal aid largesse coming from the Government as widely as possible, which becomes very difficult indeed given the explosion in legal aid costs that has occurred in recent years. What this measure is really all about is an attempt to equalise, as far as possible, the availability of scarce resources in the legal aid area. To the extent that that does involve some lessening of the returns to practitioners in this area it is to be regretted but, unfortunately, it has appeared to the Government, after weighing very seriously all the alternatives, to be the only one realistically available to it. As Senator Haines indicated, and as I said in my second reading speech, we are taking a number of steps to review the delivery of legal aid generally in order to see what economies might be made. We are looking at it not only from the point of view of the cost of legal aid but also in terms of the court procedures , particularly in the family law area, and the way in which costs may be being incurred at the moment by unnecessarily cumbrous procedures. It is against that background that a task force has been established, mainly as an internal departmental affair at this stage, to try to identify where some cost savings and rationalisation might occur. I am giving consideration to expanding the formal membership of that task force to include representatives of the kind that Senator Haines has indicated, although I would see that present exercise as being only a small and quick exercise rather than one that is necessarily directed to the rather more fundamental questions that I suspect a number of people have thought we were on about in this respect. I simply indicate that it will be an ongoing concern of this Government to try to rationalise not only legal aid delivery procedures, fee scales and things of that kind but also the whole question of the way in which legal services are rendered in this country and the way in which the court system contributes to the escalation in costs that we are experiencing. I have several quick points to make in response to matters that have been raised in the debate. The first is the suggestion by Senator Durack that what we have here is another example of that age-old phenomenon of the temporary measure becoming permanent. It is not quite true as far as the adoption here of the Australian Legal Aid Office fee scale is concerned. Although it may have been originally introduced as a temporary expedient significant changes were made to that structure, as Senator Durack will recall, late last year. Indeed, as part of the present exercise it is proposed that there be significant modifications to the ALAO scale to make it perhaps a rather fairer scale for practitioners, particularly sole practitioners or solicitors who appear as advocates rather than as briefing counsel, than it is at the moment. Those proposed modifications are set out in the second reading speech. As far as the permanence of the scale is concerned I also indicated in the second reading speech that it was proposed by the Government to review the operation of this scale after two years. That will really be the first occasion we will have to review a body of data about the way in which all of this has operated in practice. The second matter that was raised by Senator Durack as a general point was the burden on the legal profession which he regarded as being imposed by this measure. Certainly, the adoption Australia-wide of the ALAO scale, even with the proposed modifications, will represent something of a financial squeeze. All the evidence is that the cost per case is cheaper in those jurisdictions where the ALAO scale is now operating than in those where the 80 per cent of the Williams scale is the norm. It is a matter of argument as to how deeply that squeeze will bite, to mix metaphors. Practitioners are not manifestly worse off in New South Wales, Tasmania and the Northern Territory-the ALAO States-than they are in those non-ALAO States where the general fee scale, on the face of it, now prevails. Certainly, it can also be said, as I said in the second reading speech, that overall figures show that someone has been benefiting from the explosion in legal aid expenditure in recent years. It just is the case that the real cumulative increase over the last four years from 1979-80 to 1982-83 has been 64 per cent and is estimated to be over 80 per cent when one includes the current financial year, whereas the number of cases which have been referred to private practitioners and which have been paid for by that very large real increase in expenditure has represented an increase of the order of only 28 per cent. So the gap between the number of cases going out to the private practitioners and the real cost of paying them for the services they render is large and widening. Senator Peter Baume —Are they comparable cases? Senator GARETH EVANS —Yes, to the extent that it is possible to derive comparability from the figures. I have done this in the second reading speech. There does seem to be that sort of gap which does rather indicate that the profession has been deriving perhaps a little more nourishment from legal aid expenditure in recent years than was previously the case. I think that conforms with most people's experience in the legal profession area which is that in times of obviously very difficult economic constraints for the legal profession, in times of real economic depression, there has been clearly a much greater reliance by legal practitioners on legal aid to keep themselves afloat, and perhaps some padding of the bills in respect of individual cases as compared with the way in which they might originally have approached the task. To the extent that there has been a degree of padding, clearly there is a case for slimming down the financial claims a bit. Senator Durack —One reason for it was the increase in the Williams scales. Senator GARETH EVANS —It is certainly the case that there have been some quantum jumps in the fee scales over that period. There is no doubt about that. All I am saying is that this has to be taken into account and weighed in the balance against the claim that great sacrifices have been demanded of the legal profession in recent years. It is clearly not desirable to put too much of a squeeze on the private legal sector in this respect because I readily acknowledge that it is the case that many young practitioners do quite genuinely and properly rely very substantially on legal aid funds, particularly in family law cases, to put them on their feet. But I have to repeat the point that I have made constantly in debate around the country on this issue, and again in the second reading speech-a point that was repeated by Senator Durack in quoting me- that legal aid, whatever else it is, is just not a form of industry assistance for the legal profession. Its social and economic justification is very different from that. Regrettably, in a world of scarce resources and tight budgets, that is not a perspective through which we can approach that degree of expenditure. Finally, Senator Durack asked me what the progress was on negotiations with respect to the establishment of legal aid commissions and a State based model in those jurisdictions, namely, New South Wales, Tasmania and the Northern Territory, where such commissions do not presently exist. It is a fair question because it was one that I constantly asked of him in recent years when I was in Opposition. I have to say that not a great deal of progress has been made in the six months that the Government has been in office, simply because in this area I have regarded the primary task as being to lay the foundations for negotiations by first of all rationalising the fee structure-this measure is a very important one in this respect; trying to untangle and rationalise funding arrangements between the Commonwealth and the States; trying to bring some order and increased resources into the public sector staffing aspects of legal aid delivery; and trying to resolve some of the outstanding questions of principle about the mix between private practitioners and salaried professionals in this area. Also associated with this exercise is the question of the future of the Commonwealth Legal Aid Council and its re-establishment, as is Government policy , as a statutory commission. All of these considerations are intertwined and at the moment I am looking forward, in the first half of next year, to having all the threads pulled reasonably together and as a result bringing to fruition the negotiations for what everyone accepts is a desirable objective, that is, the creation of legal aid commissions in those jurisdictions where that structure does not presently exist. I repeat that I am grateful to the Senate for the support given to this measure and I am glad to see it enjoying a speedy passage. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(10.55) —I appreciate that the Government, the Opposition and the Australian Democrats support this measure, but I wish to ask a couple of short questions of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). In his second reading speech he detailed the cost of average family law referrals in the various States. Admittedly, these costs will vary because of duration and other factors, but it is quite evident that in New South Wales and Tasmania, for example, where the average costs are $469 and $429 respectively, costs are far lower than, for example in Victoria and Western Australia, where the average costs are $834 and $585 respectively. As was said during the second reading debate, New South Wales and Tasmania are the two States in which payments are made through the Australian Legal Aid Office. The first question I ask is: Given the fact that payments in those States are substantially lower than in the other States, is there not the additional impost in those States of delays in payments through the ALAO? The second question-I will make it brief-is: Can the Attorney-General tell me the amount of money that is paid internally by ALAO-that is to say, to its legal salaried staff-in respect of family law matters? Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(10.57) —Mr Chairman, as to the latter question asked by Senator Harradine, I do not have information readily to hand but I will be happy to make it available to the honourable senator in subsequent correspondence when we have had a chance to see what figures are available. As to the first question about whether there is any significant delay factor built into the payments system for the two Australian Legal Aid Office States-New South Wales and Tasmania-and whether this might be one of the considerations making it cheaper on the face of it to deliver legal aid in those States, it would not appear that there is any significant delay factor. I do not have the Tasmanian figures to hand, but for the Sydney ALAO and the payment of bills of private practitioners briefed by that Office, the basic figure is four weeks for payment to be tendered. If there are no particular problems associated with the matter, if a routine, straightforward bill is submitted, and if the request for payment is submitted through regional offices the delay is of the order of six to eight weeks. Again, that time can stretch out in the context of a more complex matter involving more complex costing exercises for the Office. But on the face of it those orders of delay would not seem to be unreasonable. Certainly, I have had no submissions whatsoever since I became a member of the Government suggesting that that was any kind of a serious problem in the jurisdictions in question. I will seek out some sort of answer for the honourable senator as to the latter question. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Gareth Evans) read a third time. Canberra Mail Exchange: Industrial Dispute-Anna Franke-Royal Australian Air Force: Mercy Flights The PRESIDENT —Order! It being 11 p.m., in accordance with sessional order I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(11.00) —I raise a matter that I attempted to raise earlier today but was ruled out of order. It relates to the matter of the mail situation in Canberra as it exists at present. The mail strike has been going on now for quite a while. It started on 15 September 1983 when apparently a certain event took place at the Kingston mail centre. An Australia Post security officer allowed an employee from a nearby service station to enter the mail centre to seek to identify someone who was thought to have passed a bad cheque. I do not think there is any doubt that perhaps that was a foolish action. Certainly, Australia Post has apologised for allowing that to occur. But the employees then went on strike which I suggest was a hasty response. Perhaps that could have been handled somewhat differently in terms of resolving their feelings about this person having been allowed into the mail centre. The strike lasted for a week. The sorters returned, I think, at about 2 p.m. on 22 September. The problem which has arisen since then is that work bans have been enforced in the mail centre on mail coming into Canberra which has not been distributed and on mail going out of Canberra which has not been allowed to go out. This is because the employees of Australia Post, the sorters at the Kingston mail centre, seek to be paid for the time that they were on strike. The end result, of course, is that the people of Canberra are being seriously affected by this situation. This afternoon I sought to raise the extent to which a government authority was being inconvenienced. But I suggest that perhaps many sections of government are being affected. I do not really know whether or not they are coping. I am aware of the extent to which individual businessmen are being affected in Canberra because of the number of representations that have been made to my electoral office by people having difficulty paying wages because they have not received cheques over this time. Certainly I have had representations from constituents who have had difficulty in maintaining what would otherwise be regarded as quite normal mail contact with their families in other parts of Australia. It is a great inconvenience. It is costing the people of Canberra a great deal. Senator Kilgariff —What about pension cheques? Senator REID —I believe that pension cheques have been getting through; special arrangements have been made. There have certainly been complaints from people about pension cheques but the sorters have said that they are allowing social security cheques to get through. I hope that is the case. I know of one couple who depend on superannuation cheques, not government cheques, which they receive fortnightly from Sydney. At this stage they have not received two of those cheques. They have not got through the mail centre. Because of their nature they cannot be identified in a way which makes them as accessible as government social security cheques. I am sure that couple is not the only couple who depends on an income coming in that manner. The effects flow on to many areas. I am sure most honourable senators saw the case in yesterday morning's Canberra Times of a young girl who is dependent on a certain type of medicine. Her father had to go to Sydney to collect it. I am sure that many honourable senators who have seen their airline tickets know how costly it is to travel between Canberra and Sydney at the present time. I think this is a case in which both sides have been in the wrong. But the impact on people who have not been a party to this dispute is severe indeed. They are primarily the people of Canberra. I wonder whether the rest of Australia knows that their mail to the national capital is not getting through, that the information they are required to send to Government, the cheques they are required to send to Government and other mail is not being answered because it is not being received. I know of an instance where certain legal documents were sent by a woman to her son in Canberra. They were urgent. They had to be signed and returned. As it happened, she had to make a phone call to him that proved to be difficult but he had not received the documents. He did not know that they had been sent. There does not seem to have been much response to the problem from the other representatives in the Australian Capital Territory. The Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) has been contacted and, I understand from the reports, has said that it is not his problem, that it is the problem of either the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations ( Mr Willis) or the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy). This attitude of the Minister for Territories and Local Government has certainly caused a lot of disappointment because I think many people in Canberra believed that he was our Minister, that he cared about us and that in a situation like this, in which individual citizens of this community are being affected, they could rely on him , a senior member of the Party who has been around a long time, to intervene and to seek to find a solution, even though in fact he is not the Minister responsible. Unfortunately that does not seem to be the way he sees the matter. There is a problem with the courts. In recent times, I think for good reason, summonses have been sent out by mail. It is much cheaper and, in the normal course of the mail, it is a fairly reasonable way to do it. Under the regulation it is deemed that a summons is received two days after it is posted unless the court receives evidence to the effect that this is not the case. Normally another couple of days does not really matter, but if summonses are returnable in, say, four weeks from the date on which they were sent out, given the length of time that this dispute has gone on a considerable amount of difficulty could be caused for many people who ought otherwise not to have had that problem. I do not know what the outcome will be, but I hope that the parties will discuss it. I hope they realise that the dispute is between Australia Post and the relevant union, that the people of Canberra have not done anything to bring this on themselves and that the dispute ought to be ended. I think it was a hasty decision to go on strike in the first place. The Canberra Times has referred to the matter several times. It has referred to the fact that there is undoubtedly fault on both sides and has canvassed the range of mail that can be held up-including job applications, which at a time like this are important, applications for tertiary study, medicines not available in Canberra, wedding invitations, sad letters about deaths in the family, love letters, birthday cards and holiday arrangements. I received a complaint from a motel relating to monies not being received by way of deposit from people who were expecting accommodation here. I received a complaint from a person at the university who had had to cancel a trip overseas because of ill health and some weeks ago now had sent 30 letters advising people of the inability to travel and attend certain pre-arranged functions. On receiving a cable last week, it became apparent that those letters had not got out and that people did not know. The cost of sending cables is quite considerable. These are stories-and there are many others-of individuals who have been greatly inconvenienced by something which, as I said, is not of their own doing. I ask the Ministers concerned to seek meetings so that this can be resolved and so that the people of Canberra and the people of Australia are not continually affected in the way they have been. It has gone on for far too long. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(11.08) —I wish to mention briefly in the Senate the plight of one Anna Franke, a resident of Launceston who was recently sentenced to three years gaol after pleading guilty to the manslaughter of her husband Wolfgang Franke. The sentence was backdated to 24 February, the date she was taken into custody and she will be eligible for parole from 24 February 1984. But there are many in the community in Tasmania of the view that it would be the mark of a compassionate society for Anna Franke to be freed before that date. Christmas is often mentioned as an appropriate time when that compassion should be made effective. I understand this to be the view of the group headed by Ms Robyn Friend of Launceston. Without traversing all the gruesome details, this is a case where sexual humiliation and sadism were apparently practised by Wolfgang Franke against his wife. It is the case that during such an incident Anna Franke struck the blow which simultaneously killed her husband and thereby released her from the battering and perversion of her tormentor. She killed her husband and society was right to record a conviction for such a blotting out of a human life. It is possibly right that some period of imprisonment should be required of the convicted woman in recognition of the commission of that crime, but I hope that the State Government can feel able to advise the Governor to exercise some power to release Anna Franke early. Whilst it is true that this is a matter of State concern and falls within the province of State Government response, nevertheless I believe some matters are raised which are of wider concern. There is the question of the attitude of the criminal law to provocation giving rise to a killing, whether provocation cannot be said to lie in a particular incident but rather is sustained over a lengthy period of degrading and brutal mistreatment such that eventually the provoked party retaliates. The question I wish to raise tonight is that of the different sentencing procedures of the courts in various jurisdictions, and indeed amongst different judges, in respect of similar incidents. Judges are given very few guideposts and almost no legislative guidance from the elected representatives of the people as to what should be an appropriate sentence in relation to situations such as this, about which I believe society only over recent years has become aware. I recall that the Law Reform Commission in its report entitled ' Sentencing of Federal Offenders', I think in 1980, suggested the creation of a national sentencing council comprised of a majority of judicial officers on a part time basis. The council would, amongst other things, suggest guidelines which, whilst not curtailing the humanising element of judicial discretion in sentencing, would nevertheless offer a more precise indication to the judiciary of acceptable parameters within which sentences could fall. I know that that council was to be concerned with offenders against Federal laws, but I see the recognition there of the problem as relevant to the misgivings about and even outright hostility to the type of sentence which has been awarded in the case of Anna Franke. Whilst I hope in relation to this type of case that some guidance can be given to justices throughout Australia by some appropriate body, this will clearly not be of assistance to Anna Franke over the next few months. I sincerely add my voice to those Tasmanians who wish to see her released from imprisonment before Christmas. This must not be a campaign in which Anna Franke is used for some symbolic purpose. She has been used-or abused , more properly, perhaps-enough. Rather the campaign needs to be part of an overall caring attitude towards this woman. I believe this to be the case, and I hope she derives some comfort from the support of those who do so care. Senator KILGARIFF(Northern Territory)(11.13) —About three weeks ago I was in my office in Parliament House and I received a phone call from the Alice Springs Hospital, where the parents of a child who had just been born with a serious medical problem were looking for some relief. Very fortunately, as I happened to look into the situation, I found that the Royal Australian Air Force was available. On this occasion the parents of the baby asked that the Royal Australian Air Force authorities be thanked for the mercy dash they carried out in an aircraft across Australia from Sydney to Alice Springs and then down to Adelaide. On that flight there were a teenage girl and four infant children with serious medical problems. I asked myself then: 'What does the RAAF do for the people of Australia?' We often hear criticisms in the Senate of the RAAF whether for VIP flights, flights across Tasmania, or various other things. The RAAF cops a lot of criticism. Of course, at times we hear of flights bringing refugees into Australia and all the things that the 707s are being used for. In this situation I asked the RAAF what types of mercy flights it had carried out recently. Having in mind the thankfulness of the parents of this particular child in Alice Springs, I looked further into the matter. I have a document that I wish to be incorporated in Hansard which indicates that the RAAF in the last few months has flown mercy flights during all hours of the day and particularly, it seems, at night. They have flown to Norfolk Island, Lismore, Honiara, Singapore, Madang, Cocos, Tarawa, Adelaide, Norfolk Island, Alice Springs, Albury, Shoalwater Bay, Townsville, again to Norfolk Island, Port Moresby, Lismore and again to Alice Springs. It is timely, having in mind that it is not too often that the Royal Australian Air Force receives a few words of thanks or praise in this place, to recognise it publicly for the work it does on behalf of those very many people not only in Australia but in other parts of South East Asia to which it brings mercy and undertakes compassionate trips so that seriously ill people can be brought to Australia for medical attention. I have no doubt that we hope that the people listed in the document survived. I take this opportunity to recognise the worth of the RAAF and the things that it does very quietly without praise. I ask that this document be incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. The document read as follows- MEDEVAC FLIGHTS 1 JANUARY 1983-22 SEPTEMBER 1983 Mr T. Rowe Senior Private Secretary Parliament House As discussed Murray/Rowe, please find enclosed further information to that provided vide ASRP-AF 450/83 of 22 September 1983. 5 January C130 Norfolk Island/Sydney Mother and premature baby 21 January C130 Lismore/Sydney Male patient with suspected brain damage 9 February C130 Honiara/Sydney Australian stroke victim 24 February C130 Singapore/Melbourne Singaporean child iron lung patient 25 February C130 Madang/Brisbane Malaria patient 6 March P3B Cocos/Perth Seriously ill Australian girl 20 March C130 Tarawa/Sydney Kiribati woman with gynacological disorder 9 April P3 Adelaide/Melbourne RAAF airman requiring specialist treatment 10 April C130 Norfolk Island/Sydney Australian stroke victim (Mr Justice Fox) 11 April P3B Alice Springs/Adelaide Three premature babies 29 April Caribou Albury/Sydney Navy seaman car accident victim 13 May Iroquois Shoalwater Bay/Rockhampton Fisherman requiring medical treatment 1 July Iroquois Townsville/HMAS Curlewis Doctor conveyed to ship in order to attend to drowned diver 19 July C130 Norfolk Island/Sydney Three civilians requiring urgent medical treatment 26 August C130 Port Moresby/Brisbane Australian car accident victim 31 August C130 Lismore/Sydney Patient with respiratory problems 13 September C130 Alice Springs/Adelaide One teenage girl and four infant children with serious medical problems Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(11.17) —Three speakers have raised matters on the adjournment tonight. Senator Reid made some pertinent comments about the inconvenience and worse which has been caused to many people by the continuing industrial dispute at the Canberra Mail Exchange. The Government certainly acknowledges the force of Senator Reid's comments in this respect, and the continuing dispute is a matter of concern to us. The position we have taken so far is essentially that of monitoring the dispute in the hope that it could be resolved by ordinary industrial processes. Robust intervention by government at ministerial or any other level is not always the most sensible way of resolving a dispute of this kind, particularly one where there appears on the face of it to be a degree of blame to be attached to both sides. I refer to the initial mishandling of the investigation which promoted the strike and to the arguably overreaction of the union workers to it. The process of dispute resolution which has been going on does not, however, give one at this stage a great deal of cause for encouragement. The dispute first went before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission on Wednesday, 21 September and consultations between the parties have, I understand , continued since the dispute commenced. The most recent hearing of the matter was this morning by Deputy President Maddern. I am told that he said that it was not within his power to award pay while people were on strike, which was the particular matter before him today. But he concluded that, if it had been within his power, he would not have awarded it in this case. He ordered the parties into compulsory conference this afternoon and we have not heard the result of that. So any possible intervening role the Government might play will still be contingent on the success of the outcome of those negotiations. Obviously we all hope that it can be brought to a sensible solution before too much further time has elapsed. As to the matter of Anna Franke raised by Sentator Tate, it is the case that these domestic violence cases, and the responses they arouse which do not rarely result in murder cases of the kind in issue here, are very tragic and put a real test on the principles to be applied both in conviction and sentencing by the legal system. There is, of course, nothing that the Federal Government can do about this particular case. It is within the Tasmanian jurisdiction and a matter for the Tasmanian Government to resolve. I certainly did not understand Senator Tate to be suggesting that there was anything that could be done about this case , but I note it as yet another example of the tragedy of domestic violence in this country and hope that it will serve to throw another kind of spotlight on the extent and magnitude of that particular social problem. The larger question that Senator Tate adverted to was the desirability of getting some uniformity and rationality into sentencing practices around Australia. In this respect, I wholeheartedly endorse his remarks, based as they were on the very substantial report of the Law Reform Commission several years ago. The main recommendation-or the most readily able to be implemented recommendation-of the Law Reform Commission was, as Senator Tate said, the establishment of a federal sentencing council. I have endeavoured since assuming office to get such a council set up, but regrettably I have to report that I have not had much by way of useful co-operation from the States in this respect, with several States being wholly unsympathetic, partly I suspect as a result of the attitudes of their own judiciaries. Even those States which are sympathetic in principle are having budgetary problems, so they tell me, which would inhibit their paying the fares of members to participate effectively in such a council. Nonetheless, I remain firmly wedded to the belief that the establishment of such a body, even if at the outset only in relation to federal offences, would be wholly desirable. I understand that Professor Richard Harding, who is to take up an appointment early next year as the new Director of the Australian Institute of Criminology, shares that view. I hope as a result that one way or another we can move early next year to proceed with the establishment of some form of sentencing body to begin the task of rationalising what is at present a very considerable muddle so far as sentencing practices are concerned. Finally, we had Senator Kilgariff bringing us some welcome good news-we do not hear much of it in this place-about the role that is being played by the Royal Australian Air Force in mercy flights all around the country and, indeed, outside the country. I am sure that all honourable senators will agree with Senator Kilgariff that the RAAF's role in this respect is deserving of very high praise indeed. On behalf of the Government, I thank Senator Kilgariff for bringing forward the matter in the way he has tonight. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 11.22 p.m. The following papers were presented: Commonwealth Teaching Service Act-Determinations 1983-No. 8 Defence Act-Determinations 1983-No. 18-Separation Allowance and others. The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 300 Senator Jones asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 23 August 1983: (1) What authority and control has Australia by way of limitation of operation over United States bases in Australia. (2) How many times have the North West Cape and Pine Gap bases been put on red alert without prior consultation with the Australian Government. Senator Gareth Evans —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Control over the operations of the Joint Australia/ United States defence facilities is shared by Australia and the United States in accordance with the provisions of the various agreements and arrangements between the Australian and United States governments that relate to those facilities. In all cases, activities at the facilities are carried out only with the full knowledge and concurrence of appropriate Australian personnel. (2) No such incidents have occurred since the then Minister for Defence, Mr Barnard, secured the agreement of the United States Secretary of Defence, Dr Schlesinger in January 1974 to the establishment of procedures to ensure that the Australian Government was advised promptly of changes in the alert status of joint Australian/ United States defence facilities in Australia. The only occasion prior to that date on which the alert status of any of the joint defence facilities is known to have been changed without consultation with the Australian Government was in October 1973. Question No. 346 Senator Messner asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 8 September 1983: (1) What is the purpose of the open employment incentive bonus. (2) Will it replace any pension or benefit. (3) How many people will be eligible for the bonus. (4) What measures will be undertaken to make potential recipients aware of the availability of this bonus. (5) What will be the estimated take-up rate of this bonus. (6) What is the estimated full year cost. (7) Will the bonus be subject to an income and/or asset test. Senator Grimes —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) To encourage disabled people to enter and remain in open employment ( including self-employment). (2) No. (3) All disabled people who have worked in sheltered employment for a minimum period of six months and who subsequently hold full time paid employment ( including self-employment) for a continuous period of not less than 12 months will be eligible to receive the bonus. As an indicator of potential demand, at 30 June 1983, there were 9,342 persons in receipt of sheltered employment allowance, through their work in sheltered employment. (4) My Department is currently examining special measures to make the bonus more widely known to disabled people. (5) Provision has been made in 1983-84 for an estimated 36 bonus payments. However, as the bonus has been introduced to encourage disabled people to move to open employment, it is hoped that the take up rate will increase in future years. (6) This is difficult to determine, but on present indications the cost would be approximately $25,000 in a full year. (7) No.