Thursday, 20 October 1983 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-Mr President, yesterday in the Senate, Senator Walsh, during Question Time, referred to my-I quote him: . . . having been an active partner of the firm Northmore, Hale, Davy and Leake in 1973 at the time that that firm set up the first tax evasion scheme for Christo Moll. A little later he said: The question of whether Senator Chaney was personally involved in devising the scheme is a matter for conjecture- Reports of those comments have been published in a number of newspapers and I have seen the reports in the Daily Telegraph, the Age and the Australian. Some of the reports and the headlines go further than what was said in the Senate by Senator Walsh. I was advised last night that Senator Walsh's office was actively promoting the reporting of his remarks in the Senate. In response to inquiries which were made to my office about my connection with the law firm, my Press Secretary issued the following Press statement last night: Allegations in the Senate by Senator Walsh about Senator Chaney's association with the Perth law firm of Northmore, Hale, Davy and Leake: Senator Chaney was an active member of Northmore, Hale until his election to the Senate in May 1974. I added that I was a member of that firm from 1964 to 1974 and I was an active member in the sense that I earned my living by practising law as a member of that firm. The statement continues: Thereafter he had no professional involvement but remained a partner until his appointment to the Fraser ministry in August 1978. His recollection is that by 1975 his financial interest in the firm had been reduced to $10. Senator Chaney is aware that Mr C. T. Moll was at some stage a client of the firm but he was never involved in personal dealings with him. I extrapolate that I was never involved in doing any professional work of any sort for him. The statement continues: He-- that is me, Senator Chaney- has had only occasional social contacts with members of the firm since election to Parliament but in no sense seeks to distance himself from the firm for which he retains a high regard and respect for their professional competence. Again, I add that a number of the present members of the firm remain good personal friends. I would like to make it quite clear, in light of the reports and in light of Senator Walsh's comments, that at no time have I had any involvement in the devising of any form of tax evasion schemes. I have not advised on such matters. I have not had any involvement in such matters. I also wish to make it quite clear that the firm of which I was a member from 1964 to 1974 is a firm of solicitors carrying on a broad general practice which ranges from involvement in legal aid through to large commercial work. At no time have I individually or through that firm had anything to do with tax evasion schemes. I also wish to add that I have never had any reason to doubt the integrity of my ex-partners. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy) —by leave-Mr President, I am sorry, I did not hear the beginning of what Senator Chaney said, but I did hear him make a reference to my office actively promoting the story. A member of my staff, with my approval, did phone some journalists; I am not sure how many. The reason for that was that the statement issued by Mr Kessell implied that the comment I had made referred to 1975. A member of my staff rang journalists-I am not sure how many-to draw their attention to the fact that the comment I made referred to 1973. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-I would like to make it quite clear that, as was indicated in the Senate yesterday, the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh, referred to events which had first occurred in his view in 1973. So that the position will be quite clear, I indicate that the statement from my office pointed out that I was an active member. I have explained that that means that I made my living full time with that firm until my election to the Senate in May 1974. I reject any suggestion that in what was put forward there was any intention other than to put down the clear factual position. Senator Walsh —In 1975- Senator CHANEY —The relevance of 1975 is that from the day of my election to this place I did not do any professional work. I put my full time into my political life. Over a period, I disengaged myself financially from the firm and that process concluded, I think, at the end of 1975 when, for personal and sentimental reasons as much as anything else, I maintained a $10 interest with the firm with which I was very pleased to be associated. 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 Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 could be used to support the provision by the Commonwealth Government of funding, counselling, etc. for deliberately procured abortions. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled: should amend the Sex Discrimination Bill so as to prevent it from being used in support of deliberately procured abortions. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Peter Baume (from 30 citizens), Boswell (from 71 citizens), Childs ( from 15 citizens), Chipp (from 40 citizens), Dame Margaret Guilfoyle (from 59 citizens), Lewis (from 83 citizens), Missen (from 52 citizens), Primmer (from 50 citizens), Robertson (from 55 citizens) and Zakharov (from 52 citizens). To the Honourable the President, and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that whereas the Government of Australia has signed the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which in Article 23 (1) states that 'The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to the protection by society and the State'. And Whereas the terms of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women would violate the above Article 23 (1) We humbly pray the Government to refrain from ratifying the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women; believing that its implementation would result in: (1) Undue cost to the nation at this time. (2) ''The elimination of any stereotyped concept of roles of men and women at all levels'' as described in Part 3 Article 10 (c), being a disruption of traditional parental roles, is likely to result in emotional disturbances of childhood. (3) The strong encouragements to mothers to join the workforce, with the provision of networks of creches and child care centres as outlined in article 11 of the convention is likely to result in maternal deprivation and psychological disturbances among children with an increase in childhood psychiatric illnesses. (4) The sexual role changing as recommended in Part 3 Article 10 (c) is likely to contribute to further marriage insecurity and breakdown. And we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our nation and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Peter Baume (from 11 citizens). To the Honourable the President, and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that whereas the Government of Australia has signed the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which in Article 23 (1) states that 'The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to the protection by society and the State'. And Whereas the terms of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women would violate the above Article 23 (1) We humbly pray the Government to refrain from ratifying the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women; And we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our nation and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Chipp (from 25 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 119 citizens). 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 justices 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 conscientiously 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 Senator Tate (from 178 citizens). Petitions received. The PRESIDENT —I present the second report of the Standing Orders Committee for the sixty-first session. Ordered that the report be printed. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That consideration of the report be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security) —Papers are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable senators. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask that the list be incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The list read as follows- 1. Department of Housing and Construction-Annual Report 1982-83-The report also includes those matters on which the Minister for Housing and Construction is required to report-pursuant to section 53 of the Home Savings Grant Act 1976, and pursuant to section 64 of the Home Deposit Assistance Act 1982. Annual Report 1982-83 Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(10.04) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The annual report of the Department of Housing and Construction which is before us is an interesting report. It covers the creation of the new department following the election of the Labor Government on 5 March. It also gives us details of the previous Government's programs and operations in the period immediately preceding the election. That period, of course, was the bulk of the year. I should like to run through some of the highlights of the report which are set out at page 3. I note, for instance, that there has been a very significant increase in the total expenditure on public housing in the last financial year. In fact an extra 27 per cent will be provided to the States which will total more than $332m. Significantly, the larger part of that occurred because $100m was made available by the former Fraser Government as a result of the wage pause program which, of course, was initiated in December of last year. Significantly, there have been very big rises in total expenditure in housing over the last financial year. It behoves us all to recognise that whilst the present Government is making a great deal of play out of the housing recovery which it claims is under way, a great part of this was initiated under the former Government prior to the election in 1983. It is also wise to recognise the economic statement made on 19 May by the present Government, which was heralded with a great deal of trumpeting, to increase the amount of money going to housing. According to that document, in the 1983-84 financial year there would be an increase of some $77m in the total payments for housing. That same statement indicates a net reduction in the next financial year, 1984-85, of $255m, and looking further out, to the year 1985-86, a further net reduction in housing funds of $265m. That runs at odds with the Government's claimed intention of putting more money into housing. Whilst the economic statement cannot be taken, I suppose, on the face of it, as being the most significant statement of economic policy, because clearly the Government is apt to change its mind as it turns every corner, as it has done over the last seven months, it indicates that although the Government has been anxious to spend more money on housing in this last financial year, its intention for the next two years is not at all clear, and that there will be a contraction in housing expenditure over the next two years. We on this side of the chamber are concerned about that because we have had no explanation from the Government as to its intentions, except that it intends to boost, so it says, the emphasis on housing expenditure from the private sector to the public sector . We hope to have more information about that in the near future. We would expect further explanations as to how that might be financed and what are the Government's intentions in dealing with the States in the next 12 months in clarifying its intentions in that regard. Question resolved in the affirmative. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Are there any reports from committees? Senator Tate —Before you move on, Mr Deputy President, perhaps I may seek some clarification. As regards Orders of the Day relating to Government Papers, on page 1,496 of the Notice Paper, when will those postponed papers come on? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —They will come on this afternoon. Senator Tate —At what time? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —It will be under General Business after Question Time. Senator Tate —In General Business immediately after Question Time? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —At roughly 3 o'clock. Senator Tate —Thank you very much. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia) —I present the 205th report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator MAGUIRE —by leave-The 205th report contains the Department of Finance minute on the Committee's earlier report, No. 197, on coal export duty. The Department of Finance minute is the formal mechanism used by the Government for responding to the Committee's recommendations. The inquiry into coal export duty arose from comments made by the Auditor- General in his report of 1979-80. The Committee's report on this inquiry was tabled in Parliament on 29 April 1982. The inquiry indicated a need for the development of a consistent and stable policy on coal export duty. It also highlighted the fact that considerable uncertainty has been generated within the industry by the almost annual changes in policy. The Committee suggested in the report that a co-ordinated approach involving discussions with all interested parties, including State governments, should be developed to ensure the fair and equitable taxation of the coal export industry. As a rule, the Committee does not concern itself with the substance of Government policies but rather with their administration or implementation. The distinction, however, is not always easy to draw. During this inquiry the Committee felt that it could not separate the difficulties involved in the administration of coal export duty from policy considerations. Consequently, the 197th report does concern itself to some extent with policy issues. As a result, the response, which was submitted to the Committee on 18 April 1983, is presented predominantly in terms of the previous Government's policies in this area. Following the change of government, events have now progressed towards a resolution of these matters. The need for substantial discussions and consultations with the coal industry, with State governments and with other interested organisations has been recognised by the Government. A major initiative of the Government on coming to office was the convening of a national coal conference in March 1983 to discuss a wide range of issues and problems affecting the industry. That conference was attended by Commonwealth Ministers, relevant Ministers from New South Wales and Queensland and representatives of the coal producers, coal mining unions and the Joint Coal Board. The conference agreed on a number of immediate measures including: The establishment of the Australian Coal Consultative Council; A review of the Joint Coal Board; A Commonwealth review and firming up of export control procedures; The sponsoring of missions to overseas markets and newly emerging markets; The promotion of education in coal use technology and logistics in less developed countries; The carrying out of intensive research on identified market opportunity; and The strengthening of bilateral relationships with consumer governments. Coal industry representatives have drawn attention to financial pressures brought about by the levels of government charges on the coal industry. In this regard, the March coal conference noted that it would be a matter for the industry to pursue these matters directly with the State governments concerned. The Commonwealth, for its part, has since raised with State governments, through the Australian Minerals and Energy Council-AMEC-an intention to rationalise taxes and charges on the industry through the introduction of a properly designed resource rent tax. Consultations have already commenced. The Committee will continue to take an interest in this matter. The Committee believes that the Government's policy should be directed at ensuring the efficient exploitation of Australia's coal resources, with particular regard for domestic requirements and the balanced development of our coal exports. I commend the report to honourable senators. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole. Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay. First Readings Motion (by Senator Grimes) proposed: That the Bills be now read a first time. Debate (on motion by Senator Collard) adjourned. The following Bills were returned from the House of Representatives without amendment: Family Law Amendment Bill 1983. Migration Amendment (Emigration of Certain Children) Bill 1983. Motion (by Senator Grimes) agreed to: That, unless otherwise ordered- (1) After consideration of Government Business, Order of the Day No. 5 ( Industries Assistance Commission Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1983 and related Bills), intervening business be postponed till after consideration of Government Business, Order of the Day No. 8 (Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill ( No. 2) 1983); and (2) At General Business, after consideration of Orders of the Day relating to Government Papers, intervening business be postponed till after consideration of Order of the Day relating to Committee Reports No. 1 (Electoral Reform-Joint Select Committee-First Report), General Business, Notices of Motion No. 5, standing in the name of Senator Teague, relating to financial support for government and non-government schools and Nos 33 and 35, standing in the name of Senator Messner, relating to the imposition of an excise on grape spirit. Debate resumed from 18 October 1983, on motion by Senator Gareth Evans: That the Bill be now read a first time. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(10.23) —In speaking on the Appropriation Bills, I take the opportunity to raise a substantially important issue in the Budget which has been ignored. It affects many thousands of people throughout our community. Senator Grimes —Mr Deputy President, I take a point of order. Could I clarify whether Senator Missen is speaking to the first reading or the second reading of these Bills? The first reading, is it? I am sorry; we did not have notification of it. Senator MISSEN —I refer to the announced decision by the Government in a statement made in May this year, in the Budget Statement and in the forthcoming legislation to remove the current rights of friendly societies throughout Australia. I refer to their right to be exempt from taxation on their incomes, a right they have enjoyed for over 100 years. I propose to deal with this matter. I know that many of my colleagues have dealt with general matters raised in the Budget and I support basically their criticisms in that area. But I prefer on this occasion to raise this issue so that members of the Senate and the public generally can realise the problems which will need to be faced as a result of a little publicised decision of the Government which it appears determined to carry on with. I refer to a long standing right of organisations in this community known as friendly societies, which operate in practically every State in the Commonwealth . Many have operated over many years, starting from the early part of last century. One of the benefits they have had, and to which reference can be found in the first Income Tax Act of this Parliament, passed back in 1915, is the right not to have to pay taxation on their income. In this way the organisations have represented small people in the community, people of relatively low incomes who have come together in a spirit of mutuality to provide benefits for each other. Those benefits have varied over the years because the State has accepted certain responsibilities and the societies have, in turn, removed themselves from those areas and provided other desirable benefits for their members. So thousands of members of these societies are affected by this threatened removal of their rights. In the announcement made by Mr Keating on 19 May 1983 at page 810 of the House of Representatives Hansard, the Treasurer makes clear what is to be done by the Government. He expressed the Government's intention in these words: Friendly societies do not currently bear tax on investment income from their life insurance and disability and accident insurance business. This has placed friendly societies at a distinct advantage over life insurance companies and has been a growing cause for concern. With the assistance of tax exemption their business has grown rapidly in recent years, and has involved policies of a kind which are of concern from a tax avoidance viewpoint. The Government has decided that the exemption for friendly societies on life, disability and accident insurance business will be terminated in respect of 1983-84 and later income years. Measures will be introduced to impose tax at a level comparable to that on the non-superannuation business of life insurance companies. Further details will be announced at a later date. This measure will not affect revenue in 1983- 84, but will add to it in 1984-85 and later years, and preserve revenue which would otherwise be foregone. In the course of this speech I will challenge many of the statements made in that segment of the Treasurer's economic statement of 19 May. But I say at this time that the Government appears quite determined to proceed with it. Of course that decision came like a bolt from the blue; there was no indication of intention before then. This statement was followed up in the Budget and in Budget Paper No. 1 the following statement is made, under the heading 'Friendly Societies': The tax exemption for friendly societies on investment income from life, disability and accident insurance business is to be terminated from the 1983-84 income year. Tax is to be imposed at a level comparable to that on the non- superannuation business of life insurance companies. It is also clear from letters which the Treasurer has written to a number of people who have made complaints about this measure that it will be persisted with. In a letter of 22 September this year, the Treasurer said to a Mr D. F. Adams: The fact that friendly societies have not until now borne tax on investment income derived from their insurance business has placed them at a distinct competitive advantage over insurance companies. That, I might say, is hotly denied by friendly societies and others who have investigated this matter. He went on to say: The precise method of taxation to be applied to the insurance business of friendly societies to achieve this result is still under consideration. I want to say by way of preliminary remarks that this matter was one about which we were not previously advised or warned in the election campaign. Last year when there was some feeling that some of the selling activities of the friendly societies could lead to some tax avoidance-I will say more about that later-the friendly societies agreed with the Government's position that there should be legislation which would deal with that problem. This legislation has not yet been brought into the Parliament. The societies took action to ensure that there would be no advertising of a sort which might encourage tax avoidance. When the discussions on this matter came to a conclusion on 22 October 1982 the then Treasurer, Mr John Howard, wrote to Mr Bill Cousins, the Secretary of the Friendly Societies of Australia Federal Council. I seek leave to incorporate the letter in Hansard. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- Mr Bill Cousins Secretary Friendly Societies of Australia Federal Council 9 Dequetteville Terrace Kent Town SA 5067 Dear Mr Cousins Thank you for your letter of 13 August, 1982 and the submission on taxation and other issues relevant to the status of friendly societies, which you had said in an earlier letter you would furnish to me. You will recall that, in responding to your earlier letter, I said that the Government did not have before it at that time any proposal for a change in the income tax status of the societies, and I confirm that that continues to be the position. Since I wrote to you, I have, of course, announced the Government's decision to amend the income tax law so as to put a stop to abuse of the present treatment of reversionary bonuses on life or endowment assurance policies, but this, as your submission implicitly recognises, must be seen as a measure of general application rather than as one aimed at particular issuers of such policies. Given that the Government continues to have no proposals before it for amending the income tax law as it bears on friendly societies, you may agree that any meeting to discuss your submission would be premature. Should any such proposal come before the Government, you may be assured that the submission would be taken into account, and in that event you could expect your Council to be given the opportunity to discuss the proposal. Yours sincerely John Howard Senator MISSEN —In that letter Mr Howard makes clear that the previous Government had no proposals before it to amend the income tax law as bearing on friendly societies. The previous Government agreed that before anything would happen the societies' submissions would be taken into account and they would have an opportunity to discuss the proposals. That procedure was known to the taxation authorities and to this Government. One can regrettably say only that that undertaking has been dishonoured and that the societies have found it necessary now to campaign against this proposal. Friendly societies today are under a lot of difficulty. I will speak later on other matters in regard to which, due to present Government policies, they will suffer particular problems. As I have said, over the last 100 years or so the societies have enjoyed this freedom from tax which has enabled them, dealing as they do mostly with small policies and small concerns, to compete in some way with the life insurance policies. The life insurance companies have been objecting to this freedom from tax and have worked to have this concession taken away from the friendly societies. Though friendly societies have a low income, they have managed to accumulate some reserves. They have been able to buy and build homes for the aged, nursing homes and buildings of that nature. They have provided facilities which their members very much want. It was said in the statement in May that friendly societies were likely, by some of their policies, to engage in tax avoidance or things of that sort. But is must be borne in mind that the average superannuation policy of the friendly societies in Victoria is $7,500. The societies are of a small nature. They are not engaged in large businesses, and in the various States they have been subject to very severe restrictions of various kinds. I refer in particular to limitations on the size of the policy which they can sell to any person. The limit has been increased only recently. Before this matter came forward in May I arranged for the Parliamentary Library to prepare a paper, which has now been issued and is available to all members of parliament. I hope it will be widely read. It is Current Issues Brief No. 10 of 1983 headed 'Taxation Status of Friendly Societies'. This matter has been discussed with not only the friendly societies but also the life insurance companies to ensure accuracy. I intend to refer only to some aspects of that paper. Before the legislation comes into this Parliament I urge members of parliament to read and study the detailed material which is set out in that paper. The paper comes to the general conclusion that the life insurance companies have no real disadvantage. They, of course, are allegedly paying 46 per cent tax on their business, but because they have a number of rights and are allowed deductions that figure is very greatly reduced. The fact is that when all the matters in this paper are taken into consideration the friendly societies receive very little advantage. If a tax of 46 per cent is imposed on them many will go to the wall. Clearly, they will not be able to compete in any way with the life assurance offices. I will refer briefly to a number of paragraphs in this paper which make significant points in this regard. Paragraph 15 of the paper states: The total amount of insurance business done by friendly societies in Australia is not large. That was a quotation from the report of the Australian Law Reform Commission on Insurance Agents and Brokers. The paper continues: However, since the tabling in September 1980, of the Law Reform Commission report No. 16 on agents and brokers, the maximum assurance benefits provided by Victorian friendly societies has been raised to $50,000 So there has been a rise in the total amount, but it does not mean that the companies are selling a great number of policies. The paper continues: This change, together with active marketing, has greatly assisted the expansion of friendly society insurance business in that state. The Victorian Government Statist in its 1982 report mentions that, for the financial year ended 1981 ( latest available figures), friendly societies in that State had $59.1m of ' assurance funds', and income from all sources of approximately $164m. Paragraph 39 of the paper considers another aspect of this matter, that is, the extent to which government regulation-of course friendly societies are controlled quite strictly under State legislation-very much restricts the societies. The paragraph states: State legislation governing the registration and activities of friendly societies imposes restrictions and costs on friendly societies which do not have to be borne by life offices. In particular, the level of assurance that societies can offer is limited by respective state legislation rather than left to individual policy documents. The next paragraphs state: The levels of friendly society assurance benefits are controlled by the rules of the society, not by individual contact, and are subject to variation by the annual meetings of members. The type of assurance offered by friendly societies is limited vis-a-vis life offices. Friendly societies are not permitted to conduct superannuation business . This no doubt places friendly societies at a distinct marketing disadvantage compared with life offices. Regarding the restrictions which are imposed, paragraph 25 of the paper states: Once registered, their operation is regulated by the submission of annual returns to the government Statist Actuary. The funds held by the societies are to be actuarially valued every five years (or less) and subject to normal audit requirements. Societies must also comply with all legislation applying to specific activities, e.g. the National Health Act 1953 in respect of health insurance activities. They are restricted by the extent to which they can invest; whereas life assurance companies are under no such type of restriction. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Sibraa) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a first time. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(10.38) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to appropriate amounts required for expenditure in 1983-84 from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the ordinary annual services of the Government. The expenditure program of the Government was outlined in the Treasurer's Budget Speech. The amounts sought in this Bill for each department are detailed in Schedule 2 and total $13,791,053,000; of this total, the Bill seeks authority for the issue of $8,049,737,000, the balance of $5,741,316,000 having already been authorised by the Supply Act (No. 1) 1983-84. An amount of $ 150,000,000 is also included in the Bill for the Advance to the Minister for Finance, the same as was provided in the Supply Act (No. 1) 1983-84 which this Bill, when enacted, will subsume. A new provision is made under Division 312 for an amount to be appropriated to the Minister for Finance to cover the salary and related administrative costs of additional staff for extensions to on-going programs and for new initiatives announced in the 1983-84 Budget, the precise allocation of which was not known at Budget time. The allocation of this amount between departments will be considered by the Government in the post-Budget period and the expenditure will be classified to the appropriate function. Clause 5 of the Bill provides for appropriation of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to enable the Minister for Finance to issue amounts for payment of increases in salaries and payments in the nature of salary arising out of awards, orders or determinations made under or in accordance with a law. Allowance has been included in the overall Budget figuring for such prospective increases, $110m in respect of persons employed under the defence function and $130m in respect of other Public Service employers; that allowance is not, however, appropriated in advance of any increases being awarded. I commend the Bill to the Senate. [COGNATE BILL: APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 2) 1983-84] Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security) —Mr Acting Deputy President, I suggest that it may suit the convenience of the Senate to have a cognate debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) and Appropriation Bill (No. 2). The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Is it the wish of the Senate to have a cognate debate covering those measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Senator MISSEN(Victoria)(10.39) —Mr Acting Deputy President, I am sorry; I should have been speaking to the second reading, not the first reading. I wish to make certain other remarks about the position of friendly societies and the disadvantages which they will suffer. Life assurance companies have assets of something like $18,500m. They have 4.3 million policy holders. They are engaged in a very large way with life policies. Of course, they have all the advantages which that increase gives them. Moreover, it is a fact that there has been a great growth in the superannuation engagements of life companies in recent years . Whereas in the year ended 30 September 1982 the ordinary business of life companies rose only 2.2 per cent, the superannuation business of those companies rose by 23.4 per cent. In fact, superannuation premiums accounted for 62 per cent of all premiums that they were receiving. Consequently, this is big business for the life companies. The idea that they are suffering disadvantage does not appear to be supported. In fact, the friendly societies, in a submission in August 1982 to the Commonwealth Government, stated: Overall, the submission concludes that there is no validity in the claim that Friendly Societies enjoy an unfair advantage over competitive institutions and hence there is no justification for changing the legislative provisions applying specifically to friendly societies. Indeed, one could put it more strongly and say that to change them would change the balance. I have been given figures which suggest that when one takes into account the effective rate of tax of life companies there is probably something like a 10 per cent advantage for the friendly societies and, in tax terms, a 1.5 per cent advantage. To reverse the situation means a disaster for the friendly societies. I urge members of the Parliament to study the paper carefully. The paper, at paragraph 73, draws attention to the very criticism made about the friendly societies that perhaps some of their policies might have encouraged tax avoidance last year. It states: Not wishing to act against the public interest, the Council-- that is, the Council of Friendly Societies- took steps at a special council meeting in June 1982, to regulate the promotion of such policies by friendly societies. It was agreed that each State Council be asked to adopt a code of conduct to control the advertising of flexibile insurance policies. They were the ones who were under criticism. The paper continues: The code prohibits, among other things: the use of the words 'tax-free' or any similar reference or the mention of 'tax- free' equivalent; the use of 'interest'; the mention of guarantees; and the restriction of terminology to that normally used in the life assurance industry. So the friendly societies took action to put their house in order when there was some suggestion of a possibility of some misuse of their facilities. It ill- becomes the Government, I think now to go ahead and hit them in this way when there is no real indication from the facts that are available to me that they enjoy any advantage or are misusing their tax rights at the present time. If, in fact, the normal rate is to be imposed, as indicated in the speech by the Treasurer (Mr Keating), paragraphs 53 and 54 state: With regard to the proposed rate of tax on friendly societies, a rate of 46 per cent is intended to be charged on investment income of friendly societies arising from life, disability and accident insurance business. This rate is comparable to that charged on the non-superannuation business of life insurance companies. However, it has been argued that life insurance companies are allowed a series of deductions, including all expenses directly incurred in gaining investment and other assessable income, some management expenses and realised losses on the disposal of investments. These reductions effectively reduce the tax rate of non -superannuation business of the life offices to a much lower rate than the 46 per cent tax rate. Life offices effectively pay only 25 to 30 per cent tax in the dollar on their non-superannuation business. One can see the way in which this would entirely reverse and put at great risk the activities of the friendly societies. There are a number of other ways in which the friendly societies will be losing. I know this is still the subject of discussion but I think it is proposed under the new pension test which will come in next year that income from friendly society investments will be taken into account. It will therefore be a lesser advantage to people who have this form of investment and who may have had it for years. The bonuses are now to be taxed. That is understood. Changes are to be made in respect of surrendered policies from 1 November this year. Also the friendly societies will suffer a considerable loss from the Medicare agencies which they had but which they are not now to have any real involvement with. So it is a fact that all these matters, some of which are accepted by the friendly societies, are cumulative. To add to them the removal of this right in respect of taxation will be a disaster. The friendly societies have made representations to and had discussions with the Government. They have pointed out that due to many of the Government's proposed changes-the idea of putting some of their moneys from aged persons and so forth into buildings will have to be discontinued. Some societies will go to the wall. I feel very strongly about this subject due to the representations I have had. I will certainly take every endeavour to persuade the Government that it ought not go down the road it is going down so far as friendly societies are concerned , particularly in the economic circumstances that we are in today. I urge the Parliament to oppose any attempt to take away this long standing right of the friendly societies. When the legislation comes in I hope that there will be a concerted attempt to ensure that the societies do not suffer in this way. I think it is very necessary to put this point of view forward at this stage and to urge people to read the basic paper which has been prepared so we are prepared to argue this matter fully when the legislation comes before the House. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(10.47) -First I will address myself to some of the general questions of the Budget before coming to one or two particular matters of portfolio interest. I draw the attention of the Senate to some of the factors underlying the Government's Budget which the Government clearly prefers not to have exposed and which are clearly those kinds of things which it has been tending to smooth over in its discussion on financial matters in this country since the Budget was brought down in August. I think we need to recognise that this Budget does represent a very substantial increase in taxation on the Australian community. In some ways one could regard the Government as having been very clever in the way in which it has dealt with this problem by camouflaging certain increases in such a way that they are not going to have an immediate impact on people's pockets but rather will be stretched out over the next 12 months or so. I instance the case first of all of the withdrawal of the income tax rebate in respect of the payments for medical insurance and hospital insurance to health insurers. That clearly will impact heavily on individual families in this financial year as it will represent a reduction chiefly in the refunds which pay as you earn taxpayers will suffer when they receive their refunds in July or August of the next financial year. As I say, that is not being felt so much in a weekly sense in terms of increases in taxation during this current year, but it certainly will have its impact a year from now and will show up at that time in lower consumer spending and consequently less activity in the economy. Other issues of that kind have been introduced as a result of the Government's removal of taxation benefits of that kind. There is, of course, the withdrawal of the housing interest tax rebate, which was available to a substantial number of taxpayers and which has been replaced by a more direct housing assistance package which we spoke of a little earlier today in regard to the annual report of the Department of Housing and Construction. That again will affect the average taxpayer to a certain extent. It may not show up so much in terms of his weekly taxation bill but it will be felt in a year or so from now when tax refunds start to flow from the Australian Taxation Office after the submission of returns for the current financial year. A number of other tax rises are camouflaged as well in this way as a result of the provisions of the Budget. For instance, the level at which a taxpayer becomes eligible for a rebate on concessional expenditure has been increased from $1,590 to $2,000. That will, therefore, wipe out effectively for a great bulk of taxpayers a substantial benefit which they have received in the form of taxation rebate each financial year. The effect again will not be felt until July or August of next year. The Government wins points very well for making soothing sounds and for taking what appears to be very limited action in the taxation area; but, indeed, it has been very savage in the way in which it has attacked the problem. While the effects will not be felt immediately in the pockets of taxpayers, they certainly will be in the year to come. As a result, the economic effects of these actions will be delayed. The assessment is that the total tax payable by each Australian family to the Commonwealth Government will increase by $12 a week. That increase , of course, must be read in conjunction with increased charges by Labor State governments for their services. The effect of those increases is really starting to bite at present. Other measures that the Government has adopted come to mind. I mention the proposal to increase the tax on lump sum superannuation payments, which was announced in the May economic statement and other matters relating to pensions, such as the assets test which is being proposed for next year. Perhaps worst of all is the indexation of excise charges. That change was introduced in this Budget and it will have a very significant ratchet effect on the cost of day to day goods such as petrol, alcohol and tobacco in the years to come as excise charges are adjusted twice a year in line with the rate of inflation. The Government has found a novel way to avoid the scrutiny by Parliament of taxation increases by simply providing that twice a year all of these excise charges will be increased automatically. This is akin, of course, to the failure of the present Government to index the income tax scale steps. Of course, during the election campaign this was said to be one of its objectives. It is one that it has failed to achieve. All in all, the promises of income tax cuts which, before the election, were assured to us and which we were so certain would not be denied, have disappeared in a cloud of smoke since 5 May and are not likely to be seen again before the next election campaign starts. It is a wonder, though, that we have not seen some attempt on the part of the Federal Government to make some promises in this area in relation to the election campaign now going on in Queensland. But perhaps the point is being made up there clearly enough by the National Party of Australia and the Liberal Party that if the Australian Labor Party came to power in that State, the result would be higher charges in a State which has the lowest level of taxation of all States. It is clear that the present Commonwealth Government requires very heavy levels of taxation to meet its expenditure programs and those which it contemplates. We , of course, will be watching very carefully the way in which taxes impact on the economy. But, suffice it to say, even though taxation will rise very significantly this financial year and the following financial year, there still remains a most substantial deficit as revealed by a perusal of the Government's financial papers. That deficit is to be of the order of $8.3 billion, almost double the deficit of the last financial year. That deficit, of course, is the highest proportion of gross domestic product in this country since Federation. That deficit will reach about 4.7 per cent of total gross domestic product this financial year and, of course, it represents a colossal job for the Treasury which must seek to raise money in the year ahead in order to meet that deficit. Last financial year, money raising programs raised a little over $4 billion for the financing of the deficit in that year. The problem that the Government faces now is much more substantial and will clearly have a very big effect upon the Government's ability to control interest rates in the domestic economy. The Government faces other problems in this regard as well. They arise chiefly from the situation overseas. It is well known that a great deal of short term money, coming in from overseas, is available in the Australian economy at the present time. Indeed the state of our foreign reserves clearly demonstrates that. I think they are running at approximately $10.75 billion at the present time. I suppose that the Government has a clearer view about the extent of short term money which is represented in that reserves figure, but it will be something to watch in the year ahead as we observe very closely whether that money will turn out again in the current year as it perceives changes in the economy and in the international economy as well. We have to note that the exchange rate for the Australian dollar has risen substantially in recent weeks. In fact, compared with the rate against the United States dollar, it has risen some five points since the presentation of the Budget. That obviously not only will have its effects directly upon exporters and, indeed, upon importers, but also clearly will have implications for the longer term potential of the Australian economy. Any major changes in the exchange rate produce structural adjustments within the economy and will cause movements to some extent not only in industry but also, as a flow on, in the job market. So, there could well be impacts upon the employment situation in this year ahead as a direct result of the firming of the Australian dollar against the American dollar. That development will need to be watched very carefully and we hope that the Government has that situation well in mind. Some of the factors which will also influence interest rates in this year ahead relate, of course, to the rate of inflation. The Government has budgeted, I suppose-if we can call it that-for a rate of inflation of the order of about 8 per cent in this current year. While that may be somewhat unrealistic in the light of unfolding events at present, it has been calculated in that way as a result of taking into account the Medicare levy, that is, discounting the rate of inflation for the Medicare levy which is said to reduce the potential inflation rate by some 3 per cent which leaves us, of course, with an underlying rate of inflation of the order of 11 1/2 per cent which is approximately the rate which applied in the last financial year. It has to be remembered that, even though there may be perceptions that the consumer price index is running at about 8 per cent as a result of this sleight of hand, the underlying cost of building materials, industry inputs and various consumer goods of kinds other than those measured in the CPI may well be running at an inflation rate far higher than that which is said to be the CPI. I think that has very serious implications for some industries, certainly for the building industry. When we have a buildup of demand in the building industry, such as is now occurring in Australia, it can have only a very positive effect in terms of increasing prices in the building trade. If that is so and if the inflation rate as perceived by the Government's calculations is to be about 8 per cent, the real level of interest rates might still remain very high. I think one of the most disturbing features about this Budget is that, irrespective of what might be the perception in respect of the CPI, interest rates may not fall this year to the extent that was hoped earlier, for two reasons. The main reason is that the rate of inflation which I have just described may be different from that perceived. Another reason, which I have also mentioned, is the size of the Budget deficit and the need for the Government to finance that deficit by raising funds in the money markets-both domestically and overseas-and by competing against the private sector in the money market. That potential for increase is recognised in the Budget Papers and does represent a very real risk to the Budget strategy. In terms of the domestic wage policy which is closely linked, of course, to the whole question of interest rates and inflation, one must have very real concerns about the trend in the labour market at the present time. The Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission recently announced a national wage increase of 4.3 per cent. That had been agreed to by the Government apparently as part of the wages accord with the trade union movement which resulted from the National Economic Summit Conference in April of this year. While it may be called other things these days, the fact is that that decision which, as I said, had substantial support from the Government, clearly is a trend back towards the system of wage indexation which went out of existence in 1981. That means that again we are building into the wages system, and consequently into the rate of inflation in this country, a very high rate of wage increase which unfortunately cannot be easily got rid of by virtue of any attempts on the part of the Government to control wage increases outside that 4.3 per cent. The point is quite clear that, irrespective of the pressures put on employers by unions and employees generally, any wage increase above that 4.3 per cent will reduce only marginally the impact on inflation of wage cost increases in this year ahead. Substantially we will have built into the system of wage costs the very direct impacts arising from the indexation decision in September. It will have the effect of building into our cost structure future inflation which has very serious implications in terms of the economic recovery which we all hope is now beginning. The decision will make it more difficult for us to sell our goods on overseas markets. It will also, of course, make it easier for importers of overseas manufactured goods to sell on Australian markets. It will mean that as a result of the rising dollar, which is the current trend in our balance of payments policies, increased levels of consumer goods and other manufactured goods will enter this country by way of direct imports. All these factors have significant risks for us in terms of the development of job opportunities in this country. Consequently, they put question marks over the whole economic strategy which this Budget represents. The question of unemployment remains the most intractable problem in this country. The Budget acknowledges this clearly in its supporting papers. The Government has admitted that it will not be able to reduce unemployment levels in the current financial year. It has admitted that there will be some increase in unemployment levels. The great pleasure which the Government has taken in recent days because of the unemployment figures which have been released recently for the month of September bears no scrutiny when one looks carefully at the facts and trends in the labour market. Whilst casting no aspersions on the Australian Bureau of Statistics, it is clear from the way in which the figures have been presented and the way in which the levels have been moving in recent months that there is some serious concern as to whether the statistics truly measure the level of unemployment and employment growth in this country. I noted with interest recent statements and reports that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, will be undertaking a review of the means by which statistics are collected to measure unemployment. It seems to me to be a most important aspect of the problem facing us at the present time. I hope that the Minister has in mind examining the methods by which this information is collated so that we can build up a little more confidence in the month to month trends which are evidenced by the monthly bulletins. The concerns of the Australian community about the Budget have been well expressed in this place and in the House of Representatives in recent weeks. Clearly, the Budget strategy is one of high risk. That is acknowledged in the Budget Papers. Indeed the Budget strategy, if one carefully reads the Budget Papers, is demonstrated quite clearly in some of the references to interest rates, monetary policy, exchange rate policy and the level of inflation, both as it is perceived and as it may develop in the year ahead. We on this side of the Senate believe that the Government reluctantly is coming to the view that it cannot fight both inflation and unemployment at the same time. In fact, it is clear from all the Government's statements that it has recognised the sequential nature of the effect of inflation on unemployment, otherwise it would not be attacking with such vigour the question of the wages accord and then talking down the union demands for increased wage payments. The Government has recognised the interconnection between inflation and unemployment. Consequently, the Government has recognised the basic statements of the previous Government in that regard. Hopefully, the Government will be able to exercise some degree of control over the trade union movement as a result of the accord agreed to at the National Economic Summit Conference. We on the Opposition benches believe that the Government will have considerable problems in doing so, as has already been evidenced by some of the breakouts in the wage increases in recent weeks. We have seen demands being made by various unions-not all of them the most militant-and consequently we have very serious doubts about the Government's ability to control this area. But it is a major breakthrough that the Government has recognised the interrelationship of these problems and consequently is addressing its mind to them in whatever misguided fashion it may deem necessary. The Budget is basically a high risk Budget. It introduces to Australians the highest level of deficit that this country has ever seen. It will provide significant difficulties for the Government in seeking to finance that without producting both new inflation and higher interest rates, We wish the Government well. We hope that it recognises the true risk it is facing and that it does not seek to mislead the public by issuing bromides of the kind that it has been issuing in recent months. Senator HAMER(Victoria)(11.11) —These Appropriation Bills are a key element in the Government's Budget strategy and the implementation of its political philosophy and the promises that it made in the last election campaign. It is worth remembering that the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said in March of this year: 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. That is what he said before he became Prime Minister. It is worth examining what has happened since then and how these promises have been reflected in or omitted from the current Appropriation Bills. I should like to look at just a few of them. There are so many that it would take all day to deal with them, so let us look at a few. In the Australian Labor Party policy speech on 16 February 1983, Mr Hawke said: Our government's total income tax package is being released concurrently with this speech. Referring to this package, he said: . . . a new six step tax scale to restore the progressive nature of the tax system. It has not been introduced. There is no sign of it in either the mini-Budget or the Budget. Mr Hawke, in the ALP policy speech of February 1983, speaking of the income tax package, said: Its key elements include immediate reductions in income tax for almost 6 million Australian taxpayers. The same man said on 17 June: We are not going to be cutting income taxes in the immediate future. Mr Hawke, in the ALP policy speech of February 1983, said Labor would introduce: . . . a lift in the tax threshold to $5000 which will free tens of thousands of low income earners from all tax. What has happened in the Budget that we are considering? Nothing. Let us look at a different area, perhaps that of pensions. In the ALP policy speech of 16 February 1983, Mr Hawke said: There can be no lift in profits or a lift in growth unless there is a lift in demand. And that cannot be done by taking money out of the weekly pay packet or the pensioner's cheque. But in May 1983, in the mini-Budget, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) said: The third major measure we have decided to take in relation to retirement incomes is to introduce an income test on the component of age and services pensions for persons aged 70 years and over which is presently paid free of any income test. So much for the remark: 'This cannot be done by taking money out of the pensioner's cheque'. In the ALP policy speech of February 1983, Mr Hawke promised to index pensions one month after CPI figures were released. The same man on 8 August said: We will increase indexed pensions and benefits in November- which is four months after the CPI figures are produced. In the ALP policy speech of February 1983, Mr Hawke said that Labor would introduce: . . . a lift in the tax threshold for pensioners of $4650 to $5893. What happened in the Budget? Nothing. In the ALP policy speech of February 1983, Mr Hawke said: We are committed to raising over a three-year period the basic pension rate from 22 per cent of average male earnings . . . to 25 per cent. This Budget did not alter it. As I have said, one could go on almost indefinitely on this subject, but let us look at one other area, that of the Government Information Unit. The Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Button, constantly carped on the existence of the Government Information Unit and the use made of it by the previous Government. He said just before the election: A Labor Government will wind down the Government Information Unit. I suppose that it did. What it did was to wind down the Government Information Unit and wind up the National Media Liaison Service, with the result that expenditure in this area has doubled, from $500,000 a year to $1m a year, and the number of staff has risen from 17 to 33. So much for winding down government services. I could deal with a dozen more items, but I take only one more. At a Press conference on 15 April 1983 the Prime Minister said: There has been no basis for the speculation that the tax rate on lump sum superannuation payments would be increased. We all know what has happened since then. These are the disposable promises, what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) calls 'Hawkespeak'. At present the Government appears to be persuading the people that in some way they are not being broken. But they are, and the people are coming to realise that they are. The excuse used by the Government is that it was misled as to the size of the deficit. It seems very confused as to which year it is talking about. Many on the Government benches seem to be thinking and arguing about the deficit for 1982-83. In fact, at the time that all these promises were made by the Labor Party there had been no announcement of any description about the size of the deficit for 1983-84-- Senator Walsh —Yes, there had; Howard said it was going to be $6 billion. Senator HAMER —Yes, I am coming to that matter. These promises were made by the Labor Party, presumably after rational consideration-although one doubts that- before there had been any discussion on the size of the deficit. Only three days before the election, after all those promises had been made, did the question of the deficit, not for the current year but for the next year, come up. That was a projection based on extremely pessimistic forecasts of the nature of revenue and on extremely optimistic or large forecasts of expenditure, which is very normal in the early stages of Budget preparation. The Labor promises were all made without any misleading as to the size of the deficit for future years. I am not arguing that these promises should have been kept. The situation is that we already have far too high a deficit. The point is that the promises should never have been made. They were totally irresponsible and constituted a gross misleading of the Australian people as to the intentions and practicability of Labor policies. We are now looking at the consequences of these sorts of actions-promising one thing and doing another. Perhaps the most dramatic of these has been the way in which both the election campaign and the National Economic Summit Conference were conducted on the basis of unemployment. The Premier of New South Wales said : 'The issue is jobs, jobs, jobs'. The trouble is that nothing has been done about it. The unemployment figures for September have just been released. They show an increase in unemployment from 10.2 per cent to 10.4 per cent. What is the Government saying? It is saying: 'This is a sign of economic recovery'. I would hate to see signs of economic deterioration in the Government's eyes. What we appear to be condemned to by the Government, despite all the rhetoric in the election campaign and at the Summit, is three-quarters of a million people out of work for years to come. The Government argument is that the worse job market signifies recovery. But how can one possibly accept the logic of that argument? If one does accept it, the blame for unemployment must lie with the unemployed themselves-or else, as Senator Messner pointed out, it is possible that the figures are wrong. The reality is that the blame for unemployment rests with those in jobs and a government which encourages them to be selfish. If we wish to reduce the level of unemployment there must be some sacrifice by the 90 per cent of people in jobs. Far from sacrificing anything, they are becoming more greedy. The Australian Council of Trade Unions is fighting for a shorter working week. At first sight it might seem that that will increase jobs. But we all know the motive is not to increase jobs. It is merely a concealed pay rise. The consequence of this demand, if accepted, and it may be, inevitably will be more unemployment. This Government has institutionalised unemployment. It has given it a type of legitimacy and tried to get people to take it for granted. For instance, why did not the Government comment seriously on the unemployment figures which show that in September 27.5 per cent of teenagers who want work are unemployed compared with less than 20 per cent last year? Australia is the only industrialised country which officially expects unemployment to rise as recovery gains momentum. Professor David Kemp put it well when he said: Governments and the major groups in the community get together to protect their interests. The thrust of the Summit approach is very much in the traditional Australian direction of 'protection all round' by the exercise of central authority rather than the more radical approach of replacing authority with market exchanges. The Summit debates clearly reveal a continuing aspiration on the part of government, union and some business leaders as well as some of the new interests (defined as conservation, consumer, welfare and church groups) towards a further extention of the use of centralised authority in the regulation of economic and social life. This Government has applied protection all round. It has given government and unions what they wanted-namely, wage indexation. Business got nothing more than predictable wage rises and the consequences of these can be devastating. I think the most irresponsible submission to an arbitration commission I have ever seen was the one made by the Government in the national wage case. That submission argued that incapacity to pay particular industries should be ignored. The submission by the counsel for the Government was that the Government was aware that some companies would have difficulties in paying wage rises. The lawyer presenting the government case went on to say: In any economic circumstances marginal firms or industries will experience economic difficulties. This is part of the normal process of growth and readjustments of the economy. First, the Government cripples a company by official action and then blames market forces-the cheek of it-for its crash. This was the most absurd economic argument ever put by a supposedly responsible government which is destroying industries by official action and then saying that market forces were to blame. There was no such thing. This sort of nonsensical argument put by governments is enormously damaging. It is very difficult to get a sensible wage and economic structure in this country while Labor governments talk such nonsense. In the Summit, and in the Budget since, the unemployed have been bought off with an irresponsibly high Budget deficit which can only delay the return to lower unemployment. Wage indexation is based on a very high inflation rate and most of the increase in government spending, which we are considering at the moment, will go into wages and imports , not into profits and jobs. We have said over and over again that the profitability of companies in this country is far too low. Out of profits come investment and out of investment comes jobs. The first task of a sensible government interested in reducing unemployment would be to restore reasonable profitability to Australian industries. Instead of that the Government has damaged them still further. The implicit assumption in all this argument is that a public service job is a perfect substitute and equal in all ways to a job in private enterprise. But the private sector is capable of generating three times as many jobs as the public sector and this should always be borne in mind. What have the unemployed received out of the National Economic Summit Conference and the Budget? They have received nothing. The only relief to the unemployed came from the wage pause put into place by the previous Government and destroyed by the present Government. If this Government had extended the wage pause there might have been some hope in the near future for the unemployed . But why should the Government care about the unemployed? After all, only 10 per cent of the people are out of work and 90 per cent are in work. The Government is too busy running a popularity campaign with the 90 per cent majority of its fellow Australians who are in jobs to care about the 10 per cent who are unemployed. Unions, of course, are also interested only in their own members, and most of them are in jobs. The Government did not offer wage cuts at the Summit or before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, as has been done in other countries in comparable circumstances, to try to save jobs in those industries crippled by the recession. What happened instead was the Government argued for an increase in wages and said that if businesses could not pay those increases they should go to the wall because they were subject to the ordinary operation of market forces. This is the way in which the Government considers jobs. It does not have any significant policy in this area. Did not the unions suggest deals in certain industries, such as the car industries, for no pay rises in return for job guarantees? What they got was an across the board pay increase. Apparently it did not matter if a flat increase destroyed the competitiveness of the industry. It was too bad for the company and too bad for its employees if the business went to the wall. We may have a recovery, one has to admit, through circumstances quite beyond the Government's control-although I suppose the Prime Minister believes he personally broke the drought-but this recovery will be skewed by a heavy dose of government spending and a few one-off factors such as bumper rural crops and stock building by businesses. However, wage indexation will prevent many industries from recovering at all and there is no recovery in sight for the unemployed. There has been a great deal of euphoria in the last few weeks about Australia's dramatic successes in the America's Cup. I must say, as a former sailor, that watching match racing between two yachts is about as exciting as watching grass grow. Nevertheless, the result was dramatically exciting although the actual racing was not a good spectacle. Our win in the America's Cup was dramatic because it brought out our good qualities as a nation. It showed that we use superior technology to the Americans, that we use good workmanship and design and that we had a trained and disciplined crew which used highly skilled tactics. Senator Grimes —That sounds like this Government. Senator HAMER —I will come to that in a moment, Senator Grimes. These are all qualities which Australians can show but by no means always do show. These qualities were necessary to win the most highly competitive sporting contest in the world, and we succeeded. But competing as part of the world ecomomy these days is at least as competitive as the America's Cup. Unfortunately, in competing on the world economy we handicap ourselves dramatically. Are we, in our industrial life, technologically innovative? Do we try new things as a matter of course or do we copy too much? Would we have won the America's Cup if we had carried two extra crew unnecessarily because some earlier design of yacht had had a larger crew? Would we have won if the crew members had worked to rule as a protest because someone had said something rude about their sail handling? Would we have won if they had gone on strike because someone found a cockroach in some obscure corner of the boat? Would we have won if they had demanded treble time for racing on a public holiday? Of course we would not have won. We can be highly competitive and we can win. We must bring the sorts of spirit, attitudes and organisation that won the America's Cup to our industrial and social life. When we can do that, if we are not given the sort of negative leadership provided by the present Government, and when we get a proper sense of direction and proper leadership, we, as a country, can shine internationally in all fields as we have shone in the America's Cup. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(11.31) —The Government's Budget is regarded by all of us in this chamber and by the public of Australia as the best indication of the Goverment's intention. It represents the Government in action. If we consider the Budget priorities for spending the Australian taxpayers' money, we will understand the priorities of the Labor Government. We will be able to look at its decisions in action and compare them with the promises that the Australian Labor Party made prior to the last election. We will be able to make a judgment whether the Goverment is living up to its rhetoric and the expectations it created at the time when it sought before Australian voters to be the government of Australia. In this Budget-and, indeed, reinforced by other decisions and announcements throughout 1983-we have seen the Labor Government attack, in particular, three groups of poeple in Australia. First, there is the unemployed. The Government has done nothing for that group. Senator Hamer has outlined that case very well. Senator Grimes, the Minister for Social Security, is in the chamber. The second group that has been directly attacked are the two million age pensioners in Australia. Beyond that group, the Goverment has attacked superannuitants, those who have expectations soon to retire and who are concerned and anxious about their retirement. The third group that the Labor Government has directly attacked is that one million Australian families connected with independent schools. That formula of the Labor Government to attack the unemployed, the aged and those associated with independent schools is as good a formula as any, as any political commentator in Australia could see, for the demise of this Government at the next election. If the ALP wanted deliberately to lose the support of Australia, it need only attack the three-quarters of a million Australians who are unemployed, the two million Australians who are aged and the one million Australian families who have opted, by direct choice, to be involved with independent schools. The case against the Government's attack on the aged has been well presented by Senator Messner, the Opposition spokesman on social security. There is no need for me to repeat the decisions made in May by the Hawke Labor Government to tax excessively superannuation payments and to bring back an income test for eligibility for the age pension for the over 70s. The aged people, in their last years, thought themselves secure and they had been given all kinds of reassurances by the Labor Government. The Labor Government had built up a balloon, soon to be deflated, that it was the party of compassion; that it would not hurt these old over-70 Australians. But it did so by decisions announced in that May statement. It told the aged that they were not going to get those pensions any more, that they were to be fully means tested. So many over-70s have become angry and anxious and pessimistic about the years ahead. In the Budget we have seen the reintroduction of the assets test with all the anomalies and inconsistencies that we have drawn out in this place over the last couple of months. The assets test will allow jewellery, paintings and antiques to be exempt. It will allow a person to have a car, a caravan and a boat. All that is exempt. Senator Grimes —Is it? Senator TEAGUE —That is the announcement that the Minister has given us in many statements as we have tried to pinpoint the anomalies. But I see that he is coming back and rethinking this matter. I know that rumours are about that the Labor Government, knowing that it has attacked these two million Australians, is having second thoughts about the exercise. If this debate can be of any further assistance, Senator Grimes, to convince the Labor Government to abandon completely the reintroduction of an assets test, this Opposition will be all the happier, as will the Australian people. The Minister's misgivings now, his recanting, his beginning to find some ground to get out of the mess that he has created is evidenced by his endeavours to interject. I hope that he goes on and abandons this ill-conceived introduction of the assets test. In the next few months we will see whether the assets test is to be abandoned by the Labor Government. As a Liberal senator from South Australia, I certainly wish it to be abandoned. On behalf of all those who have made representations to me, I urge Senator Grimes, the Minister for Social Security, and the Labor Government more truly to live up to the expectations created before the election and to get off the backs of the Australian aged and, with that, to get off the backs of the unemployed by doing something of practical help for them. During the Labor Party's term in office, it has even outdistanced our record in the level of unemployment in Australia. Seven hundred and fifty thousand Australians are unemployed and all the Government has done is give them some little compensation by an increase in the unemployment benefit. That is very inadequate action, given the enormous expectations that the Labor Party created prior to the election. We have been arguing-I have argued it since my maiden speech six years ago in this chamber-the need for young Australians to be given a fair go. Why is it that the ratio of young adults unemployed to adults unemployed is 3:1 or 4:1? Why is it that young people-teenagers, boys and girls, young men and young women aged 15 to 19-suffer the most in this period of unemployment? Why can we not give them a fair go? Why do we not allow them to offer their services to employers at a discounted level of wages or salary? Senator Grimes —Always the same answer, isn't it? Senator TEAGUE —I think it is, and I have consistently argued that. I am aware of the dangers of exploitation with an open-ended wage structure, whereby unscrupulous employers could take advantage of young Australians who offered themselves for say two-thirds to three-quarters of the adult wage. But let the proposition be defined. Let there be proper discussions by the unions who are concerned only for the 90 per cent of people who are employed and not for the 10 per cent who miss out. Let there be proper discussions involving young people so that they can say to an employer: 'It is true that I do not have the experience of a 30-year-old or a 35-year-old. I have not developed the skills in employment . Perhaps, too, I have come straight from school and have not yet understood the work place. I cannot bring the same level of skill and experience to this work as my 35-year-old competitor, but I am prepared to work for two-thirds of the adult wage. Give me a chance; I want the job and after I have been in this job for two years I will have developed those skills and then I will want to apply for the adult wage'. Why cannot we have a transition-lower wages for the young so that they can say they are worth what they are being paid by their employers? At the same time, the wages policy of this Government is playing directly into the hands of the 90 per cent who have jobs. That 90 per cent wants increased wages beyond the ability of Australia to pay. The Labor Government says: 'Let's be popular, let's give these increased wages to the 90 per cent and forget about the 10 per cent. As long as we can get 50 per cent plus one of the vote and as long as we can keep our unions on side, we will keep our political base'. I believe that that view is short sighted; it smells. It is of no direct benefit. An odour is in the nostrils of the unemployed of Australia who have been doubly let down by the new Government. They thought that the Hawke Government would create jobs by having a sensible wages policy and would allow new jobs to be created; so that instead of giving wage rises employers would be able to create new jobs. Instead, we have seen during the months of the Hawke Government a further increase in unemployment. The unemployed can only say that this Government has given them a small increase in the unemployment benefit. To summarise briefly, this Government's record, as it is expressly and most clearly evidenced in the Budget, is an attack upon three important groups of Australians. It is an attack upon the unemployed, 750,000 voters, it is an attack upon the aged, two million voters; and-I will concentrate on this group in my remaining remarks-it is an attack on independent schools and the one million Australian families which have been directly undermined and badly treated by this Government. We know that the education spending of the Commonwealth Government, as indicated in the Budget, will be $3.3 billion. That is just a small increase on last year's expenditure under the Fraser Government. The Hawke Government came to office saying that it would do all these marvellous new things in education. What have we seen? Only empty rhetoric. We have seen only a slight increase in the total commitment to education in Australia, whether it be tertiary or secondary education. Against this backdrop of business as usual, of a failure to live up to any radical change to the stable, consolidated position that the Liberal and National parties had given to education in Australia we have seen a direct attack upon independent schools. Yesterday in the debate in this chamber on a matter of public importance Senator Baume, our spokesman on education, Senator Lewis and I were joined by Senator Macklin of the Australian Democrats in raising a matter which we regarded as most urgent. I refer to the uproar in Australia about the undermining of the foundation principles of government support-taxpayer support- for the independent schools of Australia. What was the promise made during the election campaign? The Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, said that he would, through an ALP government, seek to provide unity in the field of education, to overcome the sectarian divisiveness of the state aid debate, and he would bring as much consensus to education as he would to every other field. This promise has been broken. In particular, the reassurances given to non-government schools have been neglected. It was a sorry story when the Labor Party, with Mr Dawkins as its spokesman, put into place the policies of those in the Labor Party who were opposed not just to the flourishing of the non-government schools but to the non -government schools full stop. There are in the Labor Party persons who are totally committed to abolishing independent schools. Senator Grimes —Knock it off! Senator TEAGUE —Let me quote for the honourable senator a Mr Jerry Tickell, a former President of the Australian Teachers Federation. He has been appointed by the Cain Government in Victoria to the education board in that State. He is on public record, as an appointee of a Labor government in Victoria, along with his colleagues in the Australian Teachers Federation-who are, in all of the cities and towns of New South Wales, Victoria and the other parts of Australia, key members of Labor Party branches-as saying they want to abolish any kind of taxpayer support for non-government, independent schools. Senator Grimes —That is not Labor Party policy. Senator TEAGUE —It may be a minority; Senator Grimes was nodding his head. I am saying that there are within the Labor Party persons who are totally committed to abolishing any kind of government support for independent schools. What sorts of persons make up this group within the Labor Party which had such a major part in formulating the policies which, under spokesman Dawkins, became the policies of the Labor Party? The policies of the Labor Party became so extreme during the Dawkins period that the Labor Party took the political step of taking Dawkins away from education and putting in a more stable, milder, more compassionate and conciliatory person in Chris Hurford. He became the Labor Party's spokesman in the run-in to the election in March. Mr Hurford had to try to repair all the danger signals and all the broken relationships that had emerged in response to the declared ALP policies. As honourable senators would know, in those weeks leading up to the March election Mr Hurford was going from one group of non- government schools to another, working out formulas, trying to reinforce assurances and changing the wording on certain statements so that at least the non-government schools would become a little quieter during that election campaign. Now even those assurances, even those formulas, have been set aside. Who are these opponents in the Labor Party of state aid? There are those who are, by personal conviction, secularists. They believe that we should have a secular Australia. That is a legitimate view for anyone to have. They want there to be no involvement in Australian schools of any religion; nor do they want even any independent foundation for a school or any independent set of goals for a school. They say we should gain cohesion in Australia by uniformity. They do not want difference; they want everyone to be the same. Some people might have that view; I disagree with it. Then the members of a second group, because of whatever propaganda or ideology they have picked up along the way or whatever unfortunate experience they may have had as children or as adults, have come to be just anti-religionists. Senator Peter Baume —Very few of the Labor Premiers have ever seen the inside of a government school. Senator TEAGUE —Senator Baume is right. I declare my interest: I profess to be a Christian. I am not a very good Christian but I strive to follow carefully what the scriptures have to say. Senator Coleman —That is your prerogative. Senator TEAGUE —That is my prerogative, I agree. I have declared my interest. I want my family to be able to express the values and have the commitment of a Christian. I want to see in them the advantages of having been at a Christian school, which is complementary to the Christian family. I believe that it is the wish of very many Australians to see the school system directly reinforcing, elaborating and enriching the values and commitments of the family at home in the same way as other philosophies, beliefs and religions are expressed in the schools of Australia. I strongly hold that independent schools have a right to exist in Australia so that parents are able to choose the kind of education they want for their children. Unfortunately the Council for the Defence of Government Schools was formed-after fund raising and public meetings to gain support for its campaign-which is equally committed to opposing any kind of religious school in Australia. This group somehow has the view that the beliefs which are being taught are superstitious, nonsense or are doing harm. It is out to stop those schools. I believe that those illiberal, secularist and anti-religious people have been joined by another group-a small embittered minority who have an us/them view of state and independent schools. This attitude has been directly reflected in debates in this chamber and it is certainly reflected in statements to be found all over the country in teachers journals of the last six or seven years. The view has been put forward that 'we' in the state schools are being disadvantaged by 'them' in the independent schools because every dollar 'they' get from the taxpayer is being denied to 'us'. A false picture, a false dichotomy, is drawn between 'us' and 'them'. The argument put by the Australian Teachers Federation in its propaganda during the last election campaign was: 'The Fraser Government has given dollars to the independent schools which ought to be given to us. We are in direct competition with them'. Whatever the background, beliefs or rhetoric of those opponents of the independent schools, I put to the Senate that a group within the Australian Labor Party has had a victory, having convinced the present Government to take away the foundation principles of government funding for independent schools so that money taken away from them can be given to the state schools. Those fears which I am seriously expressing are the fears of one million Australian families . I put it to the Government that by alienating those families it will alienate the votes which it will require to win the next election. Therefore I urge that the foundations principles with regard to taxpayer support for independent schools, which have been established for many years, be not undermined by the ALP, as they presently are, but be re-established. I will very briefly explain five of these principles. There is the establishment of choice principle. A family or a group of families in a local area ought to be able to establish a new independent school which reflects the philosophies and the educational strategies that they choose. Senator Grimes —What about Marxist schools? If it were a Marxist school, would you go along with that? Senator TEAGUE —The honourable senator should let the people vote with their feet. Let there be real freedom. Ministers should not be able to censor the sorts of schools which can be established. We heard Senator Ryan, when she was the Opposition Labor spokesman for education, condemn freedom of choice. She said there were community schools and small schools which ought not to exist. Senator Grimes —Rubbish. Senator TEAGUE —I can quote from Hansard. I believe that there ought to be freedom in Australia. I am a liberal and I believe that parents and children can vote with their feet as long as the education principles of every school meet the requirements of registration according to State law. The establishment of choice principle has been abandoned because the anti-state-aid members of the ALP have said: 'First of all, our strategy must be to stop any new school being developed. We will establish a new criterion'. This was announced by Senator Ryan in late July. She said that if new schools were competing with existing schools for potential enrolments, establishment funding would not be approved. Moreover this new set of censoring barriers and criteria was backdated to the day of the election, the disaster day for independent schools, when the ALP came into office. We saw in the debate on the report on Radford College an attempt by some supporters of the ALP to integrate existing independent schools within the state school system. Senator Grimes —Didn't we reject that report? Senator TEAGUE —It was rejected by the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan), but nevertheless her appointed commissioners looked into the Radford College proposal and came up with the suggestion of integration. It gained support amongst those gung ho members of the ALP who wanted to see integration eventuate. Can Ministers of the Labor Government deny that there are those within the ALP who are totally committed to achieving that integration goal which was set out in the report on Radford College? I believe that the debate in the Senate and more especially the public meetings which were attended by 700 to 900 citizens of Canberra turned the Government about. I am seeking, in this debate and in all debates, to get the Government to abandon this denial of the foundation principles on which state aid has been given to independent schools. I refer to the abandonment of the honesty principle. It has been talked about by others as the nexus. It is the principle which keeps an education policy honest by ensuring that a direct proportion of the cost of a state school place goes to an independent school. This honesty principle has been directly abandoned by Senator Ryan and the Labor Government. She boasted about it, for example, in her Hurstville speech, at the end of September. Senator Harradine —They have abandoned indexation. Senator TEAGUE —The Government has abandoned the indexation which would have kept its policy honest. It has lived up to the strategy of the members of the ALP who say: 'We want to stop not only new schools developing but also indexed grants and the guarantee that the recurrent grant in real terms will continue, but to smudge the abandonment of the principle in this first year we will actually give a 3 per cent real increase to level 3 schools'. But that has not fooled the bishops. It has not fooled the representatives of the other independent schools. Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to incorporate a Press release of the bishops of Australia, which is dated 1 September. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- The Central Commission of the Catholic Bishops of Australia in Canberra today vigorously re-affirmed the School Funding Policy of the Bishops as presented by their Catholic Education Commission in November 1982. The Central Commission expressed its very deep concern over two aspects of the funding guidelines recently given by the Government to the Commonwealth Schools Commission. The Government has decided to abolish the nexus between the cost of educating a child in a government school and the level of recurrent grants to non-government schools. This is against the Bishop's stated policy and is potentially destructive of non-government schooling. The removal of this automatic linking also minimises the capacity of non-government schools to plan. The Bishops expressed misgivings over the decision to reduce the basic recurrent grant to some students. The right of all students to share in educational funding would be endangered if this reduction were a move towards excluding any student from a basic grant. The Bishops re-affirmed the role of Government in relation to those in need. However, once again, they affirmed the right of every child to educational justice and the duty of Government to protect the right of parents to choose the kind of education that will be given to their children. Archbishop F. Rush Archbishop G. Young Archbishop J. Gleeson Archbishop T. F. Little Archbishop E. Clancy Archbishop F. Carroll Bishop D. Warren Bishop P. Dougherty For further information: Archbishop F. Carroll (062) 48 6411 1st September 1983 Senator TEAGUE —That statement refers directly to the abandonment of the principle-that is, the abolition of the nexus, the abolition of the honesty principle. It also refers directly to the grave misgivings, fears and anxieties which those people have about the abolition of the basic grant, which is the next principle, what I call the taxpayers principle. The notion that all taxpayers ought to be able to expect that some contribution-I emphasise, only some contribution-be given towards the cost of their children's education has been abandoned by Senator Ryan and the ALP Government. In Senator Ryan's speech at Hurstville she said that the expectation that there is such a taxpayers principle is specious. She rejected the notion that there be a basic grant. That is of direct concern to the independent schools. There is also the representation principle. The strategy of the opponents of independent schools have stated that they will have to purge the Schools Commission, get their people into it and get the greatest supporters of independent schools out. That is what has happened. There has been the sacking of Mr Greg Dunne and of Father John Williams, the appointment of Mr Van Davy and the reappointment of Mrs Joan Brown. They are public figures. Everybody knows the direct policies of the two who have left and the two who have come in. The latter two will be able directly to reinforce the ALP's policies. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(12.02) —It is a pleasure to follow Senator Teague in this debate and to congratulate him on the force and on the power of what he had to say. I suggest to Senator Grimes, who was asking whether the money was going into poor Catholic parochial schools, that he might care to consider why the Catholic bishops of Australia will not have a bar of the policy which the Government has put up and why a pastoral letter was read from every Catholic pulpit in Victoria on 9 October condemning specifically two of the central proposals backing the argument put by Senator Teague and rejecting the implication in what Senator Grimes had to say. This is an important debate. I want to congratulate Senator Teague for his continuing and unremitting support of non-government schools. I say to the Government that we will return again and again to this theme. It is an important theme. It is a story of broken promises and betrayed trust by this new Government which will require to be set out in this Parliament and in every place possible across the community. I notice that my colleague Senator Harradine is present in the chamber. He will recall an evening which we spent in Albury some two or three weeks ago. He will recall the message that the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan), sent to that meeting. Senator Harradine might correct me if I get it wrong, but she said that she would not be turning up herself and would not be sending a representative to speak on behalf of the Government because the matter was too delicate. Honourable senators should have heard the parents at that meeting, 950 of them, laughing to think that a politician holding an important portfolio in government, changing policies and disadvantaging people, not only would not turn up herself but also would not send a representative because the matter was too delicate. It was too delicate because so far the Minister has been disinclined to face the parents out in the community. I acknowledge that the Government of New South Wales sent one of its politicians, Mr McGowan, to the meeting. Mr McGowan did not have an easy time at that meeting, but he conducted himself with dignity and courage. I think that he gained from that audience. In this Budget debate I want to speak about jobs. I remind the Senate that just over six months ago this Government was elected on a promise-yet another promise that is unlikely to be kept-that it would provide half a million new jobs for Australians in three years. Before the election the Australian Labor Party said that the provision of these jobs was Australia's overwhelming need. In February, during the campaign for the general election, the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said: There are tremendous issues involved in this historic election of the fifth of March-first and foremost, the right of all Australians to a job. That was the rhetoric which the present Prime Minister took to the election when he was seeking the votes of Australians. We know that Australians place unemployment at the top of their concerns and of the issues which are worrying them. We know that Australians are concerned about jobs. They were interested in this promise of the then Leader of the Opposition and the now Prime Minister. In March this year the people elected this Government, partly on a policy of full employment, in accord with the promise which the ALP gave during the election and in keeping with the assurances it gave. Let us examine for a few moments what has been the Labor Government's delivery on this promise since March. What has this Government done to redeem that promise, or is this just another one of the many broken promises which are characterising this Government at this early stage? Let me say something about these promises. Many of these promises are not expensive ones to implement. I was interested in the debate yesterday on Labor's broken education promises. We were told that some of them could not be redeemed because of the costs involved. Some of the promises which Labor has failed to keep do not involve money. They involve redeeming promises about due processes, about the way in which things are done and about procedures. On those promises the Government really does stand condemned. I go back to the education area, where there was a promise not to do certain things to harm the non-government schools until certain consultations had taken place. That promise, of course, was ignored. Let me return to jobs. What has the Government done since March to redeem the promise and to fulfil the expectations which it raised among the community, particularly in the minds of those unemployed people who want to work? Its first opportunity came at the much heralded National Economic Summit Conference. At that Summit Mr Hawke repeated his election pledge. So not only was it on record during the election campaign but it was also repeated at the Economic Summit, not only by Mr Hawke but also by the President of the Australian Labor Party, the Premier of New South Wales, who at the Summit said that the issues were ' jobs, jobs, jobs'. What happened at that Summit? The Summit was presented with three scenarios. Only one of those scenarios was likely to provide the conditions for improved employment. Only one of those scenarios went anywhere towards making hard decisions in terms of wage levels, inflation and spending. Only one of those scenarios offered any kind of hope for jobs. That was the scenario which the Government did not take. One of the scenarios, the soft option, the trade-off between the Government and the employed, the scenario which offered no hope to the unemployed, was the one the Government took. It took scenario A, the soft option. It was interesting at that Economic Summit to hear the input from some of the leaders from outside government and of Sir Keith Campbell, who died tragically just a week afterwards. People said they believed there should have been a fourth scenario, one that really did provide some hope for the return of jobs and employment. But no, the Government went for a scenario and for a policy which placed a deal with the unions before a solution for the unemployed. The scenario has ensured that 100,000 fewer Australians will be able to find jobs than would have been the case even under the inadequate but tougher scenario C that was presented to that Summit Conference. Senator Crowley —Or the previous Liberal Government. Senator PETER BAUME —I am interested in the honourable senator's interjections. I say to her that, from her position in a comfortable and secure two-income family, why does she not show a bit more concern about the failure of her Government to help those families that have not even got one income? Her family receives a professorial salary and a senatorial salary which make for very soft, convenient living. The Prime Minister promised 500,000 more jobs. That was the promise of the Labor Government. But, from the Government's own documents-they have come out document by document-under its economic strategies we will see dole queues 26 per cent longer this year. If honourable senators look at the Budget Papers and Estimates and see the estimated figure for the number of people who will receive unemployment benefit and the projections from the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, the dole queues will be 26 per cent longer this year. That would not have been so had the Government, at the Economic Summit, had the guts to take the decisions which should have been taken . The dole queues could have been shorter and employment figures could have gone up. I notice that, in the last week or so, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, has indicated in the Press that a very large real rate of growth will be needed in Australia for a considerable number of years if we are to have any chance of wiping out the lost aspirations of a generation who want jobs. The Prime Minister promised 500,000 more jobs. In the first six months since the election, he has not provided 500,000 more jobs; 68, 300 jobs have been lost. We have seen a drop in the participation rate of people in employment in this country. Far from providing jobs, except perhaps, a job for Senator Crowley, the Prime Minister and Senator Crowley have presided over the loss of 68,000 more jobs. In seasonally adjusted terms over that time exactly 100 jobs have been created in Australia. How does the Prime Minister square the actual loss of 68,000 jobs with the promises he made? How does he square this with the kinds of submissions that the Government made to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission during the recent national wage case? The Government's approach to that case was an accommodation with the employed. It was an accommodation with the haves and a complete ignoring of the promises it made to those in need for whom the creation of the right climate is the only road to jobs. We know that the Government's strategy is based upon the wages accord. Even if all the pieces of that hold together, the Budget which has been brought down holds out no hope for the unemployed. The Budget Papers admit, as Mr Willis has admitted, that unemployment under the Hawke Government will rise throughout 1983 -84 and will continue to rise in 1984-85. This Budget is a political document. It aims to appease the employed. It does not aim to help the unemployed. I have said that there has been a loss of 68,000 jobs since March. The figures show that the position is getting worse. During August, there was a loss of 52,000 jobs. If this job loss rate continues, not only will it make a mockery of any promises which this Government made before it came to office and a mockery of what it promised to do for the Australian public, but also it will suggest it will lead to such a significant worsening of the situation that those Australians who care for their own jobs and those Australian parents who are worried about the prospects of their children will need to look again at where this Government is leading Australia. The August figures show that the participation rate in the work force, now down to 59.8 per cent, is the lowest participation rate since official figures were first collected more than 20 years ago. It compares with a participation rate of more than 61 per cent left to this Government by the Fraser Liberal-National Party Government when it lost office in March. If the rate of loss continues-the participation rate is down 2 per cent in six months-God knows how much further it will go down in the next six months, in the six months after that or in the year after that. Are we to have a country in which, under the Labor Party policy and Labor mismanagement, the participation rate will continue to drop? What does the Government think about all this? Recently, I think on 28 September, the Prime Minister delivered the John Curtin Memorial Lecture. I ask honourable senators to remember that he had promised to create 500,000 more jobs and to remember that he had gone to the people on a policy of full employment. He had said over and over again that jobs were the issue. He delivered the John Curtin lecture on 28 September just six months after he had promised a return to full employment. He said: Those days are over and must now be understood to be over-- He continued: However unpalatable it may be, we cannot reasonably expect in the foreseeable future, to return to the experience of the post-war generation where the conventional economy provided full employment, in the historical sense, for everybody who sought work. We cannot reduce the unpalatability of this fact by ignoring it or refusing to face up to it. It might have been more decent for the Australian people, if those were the views of Mr Hawke, for him to have expressed them in February when people were trying to put together, in their own minds, a balance of views as to how they might vote at the election. But no, during February when it was convenient for an election he said there would be jobs, jobs, jobs and he promised full employment. In September when it was not convenient he said: 'You cannot all expect jobs and you might as well face the fact'. Just over six months ago this Prime Minister told us that we must accept the new inevitability of a reduced level of employment. Just 12 months ago this Prime Minister told us that it was everyone's right to have a job. This kind of convenience and this kind of sudden conversion after the election has not left a lot of people feeling very good about the Labor Party. The Prime Minister has spoken about ways of reducing demands for jobs. He has tried methods of reducing the size of the labour force. One of the strategies which the Labor Party is examining for reducing the size of the labour force is, of course, increasing participation in education. About this time last year, as Minister for Education, I initiated a publicity campaign to try to encourage people to remain in schools. In fact, that campaign was remarkably successful because, in February this year, when we were still in government, enrolments in years 11 and 12 went up across Australia by, I think, something like 10 per cent or 11 per cent. Senator Robert Ray —Good. Senator PETER BAUME —That was good. But I want to put before the Senate the argument that participation is not a strategy in itself. Participation is flawed if it is regarded as some kind of answer to unemployment. Before I do that, let me remind the Senate once again of the difference between the rhetoric and the reality of this Government. The Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, soon after her appointment issued a Press release on 16 March. In that Press release, she reiterated some of the promises and some of the goals which she intended to follow as Minister for Education. She said: The Government's main concern in the area of student assistance is to improve the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme, (TEAS). In particular, a start would be made on reviewing and upgrading the provisions of TEAS within the context of the 1983-84 Budget. Now that was the post-election promise of the Minister for Education, and that is a promise which has been broken. It is one of the numerous promises to tertiary students which have been broken and which have not been redeemed. There were a number of specific promises in relation to TEAS-that it would be upgraded progressively, that it would be brought to the level of the unemployment benefit and that the means test would be widened-and all of those promises, had they been redeemed, would have served to have made participation easier for some people in higher education. I include among the promises-I have just read to honourable senators one that was made by the Minister post-election, after her appointment-a specific promise to take action within the context of the 1983-84 Budget. I ask the Government in this Budget debate: 'Where is the provision to redeem that promise?' The answer is: It is not there. The Government has failed absolutely to redeem another specific promise to another group who looks to it for support. Mr Acting Deputy President, we have low participation in Australia, both in the higher levels of secondary school and in tertiary education-post-school education. It is hard to know exactly what our participation level is and it is quite hard to compare it with the position in other countries. The reason is that everyone seems to measure it in a different way. How do we regard an apprentice who has work release and attends a technical college part time? Is that person in the work force or in education? Some countries would define that person as being in education; some would not. It is quite difficult to make international comparisons. But let us accept that our participation rate is low and let us acknowledge some of the reasons for that low participation rate. The Sackville Commission of Inquiry into Poverty during the 1970s recorded from students a sense of alienation and hostility towards the education system because what was being offered to and what was being required of students was seen by them as neither appropriate nor rewarding. The Beswick report, entitled 'Studies of Tertiary Student Finances', which was tabled recently and with which I was associated as Minister, identified the sense of alienation and rejection of some students as one of the factors leading to a lower than desirable level of participation. There is widespread anecdotal evidence and there is evidence from many other reports that what is being offered in education in Australia is itself not good enough to attract or to hold all the students that we would like to see receiving either advanced high school training or post-school educational opportunity. It follows from this that participation in education is not an adequate goal in itself; it is not a complete goal. Participation will only become appropriate or coherent if what is being offered within the educational institutions is seen by the students as being valuable and appropriate and if it is valued by them. Of course for many young Australians at the moment that is the case. Many young Australians participate in education because it is seen to be valuable. But many of those who drop out do so for very good reasons-because the system offers them nothing. There is no point, as part of an unemployment strategy, to direct young 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds back into a school system which offers them nothing of personal value, which does nothing to meet their immediate needs and which does not help to offer to them some future benefit which they would find as important. The difficulty-and this is not a political point I am making at this stage; it has to do with the quality of education-is that the Commonwealth may have a limited capacity to influence what is being offered within State education systems, within autonomous universities or within autonomous colleges of advanced education-- Senator Grimes —It should use what capacity it has. Senator PETER BAUME —Senator, I think it might be more appropriate to say that we should be seeking by means of dialogue and agreement to bring the education system itself to see the problem not just in terms of how to bring students back in but how those who are offering education themselves will alter what they do and what they think and how they approach teaching to give to young people a better opportunity. This Budget has failed to address the issues of unemployment in Australia. This Budget is presented at a time when unemployment is worsening. This Budget is brought down at a time when participation in the work force is less than it has been for two decades. It is brought down and contains none of the measures required to redeem specific promises for young Australians who might be in education and it does so against a background of qualitative deficiencies in education across Australia. I support the views that have been expressed by my leaders in this place and in other places about what this Budget fails to do for Australia. We look to the Government to do more to redeem its own promises in the areas of jobs for Australians and to do more to help students in Australia get from the Government what they were promised so clearly before the election. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(12.28) —I want to spend the time available to me today during the second reading debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) and the cognate Bill speaking about the relationship between this Budget, inflation and interest rates and relate that to what is happening or not happening in the United States of America and then go on to another matter. First of all let me deal a little with the United States recovery, of which we have all no doubt heard. We have heard that things in the United States are going well, that inflation is down and interest rates are down; and because interest rates are down investment enthusiasm and confidence are up. The economy is showing a good expansion. In fact it is showing a very rapid expansion indeed. Yet people to whom I have spoken about the United States recovery say that the uplift over there is due to the low interest rates. They have also pointed out to me that those interest rates have been edging up again lately and some of the people see problems ahead. Most of them say that the United States dollar is over valued at the moment. They point out that when the huge United States deficit is taken into account, interest rates must rise again. They must rise eventually when the Government decides to raise the money to cover that deficit. Many people in the United States feel that once interest rates rise, the present economic recovery will run into trouble. I have read that there is some expectation that the growth in the United States in the first quarter next year could in fact be negative. All of this has come about because Americans have been living at a standard that they cannot afford. There is no easy way out of the mess that has arisen, largely because of the failure of the United States political process to come to grips with the issue of exploding and uncontrolled government spending which has created something like 60 million dependent Americans in that country. We, like the United States, have a very large, in fact a huge, deficit. I believe that this Budget has set Australia on the wrong course because it relies on big government spending financed by huge borrowings to attempt to get the economy going. At the end of 1982 we owed more money per head to the international banking community than many other countries. I should like to read some of these figures to the Senate. Poland per head owed $US790; Mexico, $US880 ; Brazil, $US950; Chile, $US1,010; Argentina, $US1,820. Australia, leading the list, owed $US1,880 per head. That was before the effect of this Budget was taken into account. That means that we in Australia owe more than many of these countries that we all hear about as being in a situation that is fraught with danger. I seek leave to have that table incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Per capita liabilities to the International Banking Community; selected countries: 1982 Per capita Country Liabilities Population liabilities $USm m $US/person Australia 27,924 (a)14.86 1,880 Poland 27,707 (b)35.23 790 Brazil 115,753 (a)121.55 950 Chile 11,610 (c)11.49 1,010 Argentina 50,986 (a) 28.09 1,820 Mexico 62,888 (a)71.19 880 (a) 1981 estimate. (b) 1979 estimate. (c) 1982 estimate. Note: Per capita liabilities rounded to nearest $US10. Source: I.P. Sharp & Associates. Compiled at request by the Statistics Group of the Legislative Research Service . Senator TOWNLEY —We are a country that is deeply in debt. The situation will probably get worse next year. One honourable senator said that we had left the Labor Government with a huge deficit. I think if we sit down and work out a few projections of where the country is going, we will see that next year's deficit will be worse than this year's. When this Government came to office, it was said that we had saddled it with a projected deficit of almost $10 billion; so any reduction from that amount was made to look like a positive advance. The deficit , which has to be paid back one day, is almost 5 per cent of the gross domestic product. It is the largest since 1975. The borrowings of the public sector will be between 8 per cent and 9 per cent. That is the largest for a quarter of a century. We may soon have the public sector and the private sector competing for available funds. Interest rates will rise and I believe that inflation will rise . We are already ahead of many of our trading partners. In one area perhaps the Government has done the right thing. It has left the income tax rates down and it has also left investment allowance and company tax as they were. I think that will help the private sector somewhat. The ominous thing is that the delicate balance of this Budget is dependent upon the agreement with the unions. This is already showing signs of crumbling. Recently we have seen a soft government attitude to some settlements outside indexation principles. The unions in the building, oil, petro-chemical and food processing industries have sought and been granted substantial wage rises, sometimes called special allowances. These may have set a precedent that will lead to a general wage push outside the wage indexation guidelines. Some people also doubt that the unions will be prepared to accept indexation that is based on consumer price index movements because CPI figures significantly understate the actual inflation rate. So we have the risk of another wage explosion which means more inflation, and we have the distinct chance of interest rates increasing two or three per cent in the coming year. If that happens, we have no chance of sustaining any recovery in this country. I suggest to people who may read this speech that they look at the previous speech in which Senator Peter Baume outlined just how bad the job situation is in this country. I believe that our long term growth prospects are in real danger. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a small part of what was said in the Westpac Review No. 12. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Longer-term consequences By deliberately setting out to force-feed economic growth in the year ahead, the Government may well have truncated Australia's longer-term growth prospects. If an expansionary budget results in the retention of relatively high interest rates compared with those in capital markets abroad, it will tend to increase capital inflow. As a result, the $A exchange rate is likely to appreciate to an extent unwarranted by Australia's international trade performance. The net effect on the pace of private sector recovery beyond the end of the financial year is likely to be twofold. Even if the government's hopes are realised and the prices and incomes accord effectively negates wage inflation, the real interest rates implied by the fiscal-monetary policy mix may serve to stall the recovery. In any event, high real interest rates are likely to prevent the broadening of the recovery process by dampening business investment plans. At the same time, the appreciation of the $A will bite into the competitiveness of exporters and import-competing industries and add to the damaging effects of an inflation rate which will still be relatively high in international terms. Senator TOWNLEY —In Budget Statement No. 2, the Treasury says this: A wages outcome higher than currently assumed would have an especially damaging impact on business confidence and private sector spending propensities. The renewal of pressures on corporate profitability, together with a consequent slackening in private demand, would be likely to manifest itself in a further round of labour shedding and another sharp ratcheting up in the rate of employment. Senator Peter Baume —Unemployment. Senator TOWNLEY —It says 'employment' in this statement, but I think it must really mean unemployment. The document continues: Those risks are sufficiently grave in the economic context presently foreseen. They would be magnified, however, should the outlook and demand prove even stronger than presently expected while public sector demands were still growing strongly. For example, an even stronger upturn in the world economy than now foreseen could aggravate the risks within Australia of a renewed wage surge, higher inflation and higher interest rates. Unless these possible consequences were contained, the potential advantages to Australia of the world upturn could then be lost and the prospects of sustained recovery further imperilled. I am worried about the future of this country. We are spending too much. We are becoming borrowers in the league of some of the banana republics, as I mentioned , and as is shown from the table which I incorporated in Hansard. Interest rates will rise. Investment, I believe, will fall. Unemployment will therefore rise. We could also have increased inflation which would put us at a further disadvantage with our trading partners. As the year goes on, I believe that more and more people will realise that this Budget has failed Australia. It is my belief that while we borrow at the rate that we are borrowing at and while we live on credit the way we are, we are heading this country towards financial disaster and increased unemployment that will eventually destroy this Government . I believe that the economy of this country will destroy this Government, no matter how many sporting functions the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, manages to attend. Let me say that I am not one who says that he should not attend them. I think it is very good that he does. Once again I want to say something about uranium mining and atomic power. At the outset, let me say that I believe that no one in this world would want to see any of the thousands of present day atomic weapons used. I am a member of the parliamentary disarmament group concerned with the gradual and total removal of all atomic weapons and other weapons. We have all heard of yellowcake. That is somewhat less than one part in 100 of uranium 235. When people talk of uranium enrichment, they do not mean enriching the uranium to weapons grade. What is meant is enriching the yellowcake to about five or six times what it is when it is shipped from the mines. For some reason, lay people are scared of the process of enrichment. I do not think many people in this chamber understand very much about it. It is a relatively simple chemical and physical process. the chemistry is quite straightforward, but the separation of the U235 from the more predominant uranium does take a little physical doing and usually involves banks of centrifuges. It is something which I believe this country should be looking at. On 20 September, in answer to a question by Senator Sir John Carrick, Senator Walsh, when talking about a cutting back of uranium enrichment at the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, said: That judgment was both responsible and compatible with the policy of the Australian Labor Party. As a result of that, the expansion to a full cascade of the uranium enrichment program which had previously been anticipated was not proceeded with. Some work on enrichment is still proceeding this year. What will happen next year is a matter to be determined at a later date. I hope that at that date some thought will be given to continuing the enrichment program. I want to make my position quite clear with regard to the use of uranium for peaceful purposes. I believe we should be mining uranium. I believe that we should continue looking at the enrichment process. We should be supplying if not enriched uranium certainly yellowcake to the large number of countries which are using uranium at this time to produce power. I believe that 25 countries are getting their power from atomic stations. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a list of those countries. The list also includes some countries which are constructing power stations. Leave granted. The list read as follows- O C Argentina 1 2 Belgium 5 2 Brazil 1 2 Bulgaria 4 1 Canada 13 10 Cuba . . 1 Czechoslovakia 2 6 Finland 4 . . France 32 27 Germany (E) 5 8 Germany (W) 15 9 Hungary 1 3 India 4 6 Italy 3 3 Japan 25 10 Korea 2 7 Mexico . . 2 Netherlands 2 . . Pakistan 1 . . Philippines . . 1 Poland . . 1 Romania . . 2 South Africa . . 2 Spain 4 11 Sweden 10 2 Switzerland 4 1 Taiwan 4 2 UK 31 10 USA 80 61 USSR 40 23 Yugoslavia 1 . . O = operating; C = constructing. Total operating, 294; under construction, 215. (Source: International Atomic Energy Agency). Senator TOWNLEY —I also seek leave to incorporate a list of States of the United States of America which are producing a considerable amount of power from atomic stations. It is a fairly small list and one which easily could be incorporated in Hansard. The list appeared in the August-September issue of Mining Review. Leave granted. The list read as follows- Nuclear Nuclear as generator per cent (million of State's Ranking State KWh) total KWh 1 Vermont 4,174 82.6 2 Connecticut 13,627 55.8 3 Maine 4,524 54.3 4 Nebraska 8,751 47.9 5 Virginia 17,420 47.6 6 New Jersey 14,039 44.6 7 Alabama 27,703 37.1 8 Minesota 10,197 35.7 9 South Carolina 13,157 35.7 10 Maryland 10,345 34.8 11 Arkansas 7,483 31.9 12 Illinois 27,625 29.5 13 Wisconsin 10,267 27.5 14 Michigan 15,004 21.8 15 Florida 19,319 21.0 16 Tennessee 10,104 17.0 17 New York 14,438 14.2 18 Pennsylvania 16,472 13.7 19 Massachusetts 4,173 12.3 20 South Carolina 9,127 12.2 21 Georgia 6,604 11.0 22 Iowa 2,269 10.4 23 Oregon 4,793 10.1 24 Washington 3,630 3.6 25 California 3,736 3.2 26 Ohio 3,226 3.1 27 Colorado 596 2.2 Total: 27 states = 282,776 million KWh nuclear Senator TOWNLEY —With regard to enrichment, maybe it is time one of the Senate committees looked at whether this country should be engaged in uranium enrichment or not. Perhaps the Senate Standing Committee on Science, Technology and the Environment or the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources could investigate this process and report to the Senate. As an engineer, I feel that I have a responsibility to try to stop what I call mindless opposition to the peaceful use of uranium. It is time we educated our young that eventually uranium power will be required even in this country. I draw the attention of the Senate to an article which appeared in the Mercury yesterday. It points out that with atomic matters war is the problem. It is the bombs and things that are the problem, not the atomic powerstations. I draw the attention of all honourable senators to that article, which I think is very good . It comes, of course, from a very eminent nuclear physicist. As I have mentioned on other occasions, I believe the best way to get any electric power is from water. The worst way, I believe, of getting electric power is from burning coal. In both Europe and America there is evidence that the acid rain that is created when the water of the atmosphere mixes with some gases emitted by coal powered stations, and some other sources too, is getting so strong that it is killing fish in some lakes, reducing the growth of some crop production and also leaching some metals from the soil into ground water supplies. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Debate resumed. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(12.45) —I wish to speak for a few moments on the subject of disarmament and this Government's response to that problem. Given the fact that we are on the eve of the United Nations Disarmament Week and the Senate will not be sitting next week, I thought the opportunity ought to be taken now to say a few words about a matter which really touches the aspirations of, I think, all people throughout the world in whatever society or culture they live. One recalls the words of Isaiah in the great Jewish tradition, of course, when he said: . . . they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. Senator Robertson thinks I am about to break into a sermon; I am not. What I want to state is that that particular text at least does give us an ethical imperative, an aspiration which I think all human beings can share. The question is: How does the present Labor Government shape up in addressing this particular problem? Already it has taken certain significant steps in relation to a problem which is revealed in the annual publication of World Military and Social Expenditures 1982 compiled by Ruth Leger Sivard. One finds that military expansion in 1982 continued its upward thrust. All the basic indicators show that militarism and armaments, the arsenals of war, are expanding at a terrific rate. Four measurable features of the arms race of the 1980s are astronomical costs, now reaching over $600 billion a year or well over $100m a minute; 25 million people serving in the regular armed forces, backed three to one by reserves, paramilitary forces, and the civilians needed to produce weapons and services essential for their operation; an international trade in conventional arms, now over $35 billion a year, proliferating sophisticated weapons of war into the most remote and least developed areas of the world; and an uncontrolled buildup of nuclear weapons at present equal to an explosive force of 3.5 tonnes of TNT for every person on earth. All those indicators point to what we know, namely, that the growing militarisation and increase in the arsenals of war are continuing to pose a grave threat to mankind's very future. Human history as we know it could be brought to an end. In that situation, it is pleasing to see that this Government has taken a major step in the appointment for the first time of an Australian Ambassador for Disarmament. Indeed, the appointment of Mr Richard Butler gives Australian diplomatic presence around the world a very high status, a very clear focus. He has been given instructions to adopt an aggressive profile in negotiations. Of course, he is also to return to Australia frequently in order to confer with and no doubt be strengthened by the very wide movement in relation to peace matters which is a feature of life in Australia at the moment-and a growing feature at that. I am not suggesting that this Government is merely satisfying some strident constituency out on the streets, but it is true that this Government, as opposed to the previous Government, is not afraid of that constituency. Indeed, I recall that in a report given after the last United Nations Special Session on Disarmament Mr Street said that the mass movement could distract us from the real issues of disarmament. However, we believe that that mass movement is essential if governments are to respond truly to that deep aspiration of humanity of which I spoke in my opening remarks. In addition to the appointment of the Ambassador, there has been an allocation of funds in this Budget for the creation of a peace and development research institute at the rate of some $100,000 a year initially. That sum is really quite small in budgetary terms. It is hardly generous but at least it enables us to get that particular project off the ground. I believe that negotiations are well advanced with the Australian National University. Perhaps Senator Georges, who is well known for his great involvement in these matters over the years when it was highly unpopular to be so involved and is, I believe, on the ANU Council, could signal some assent to the fact that negotiations are progressing. Senator Georges —Yes. Senator TATE —Indeed, they appear to be progressing. It would be pleasing to see such a peace and development research institute established within a university campus to give it the status that is appropriate because it is essential that the research that it undertakes be such that it can command confidence. Part of that commanding of confidence will come from the appointment of a director and staff of international, and certainly high, calibre, so that we can attract researchers and gain credibility for the institute. As I say, the first steps are being taken. There is a need for such an institute. It is no error of judgment that the two questions of peace and development are linked in the very title of the body to be established. Those negotiations are under way as a second instance of the Government's response by way of new initiatives to the whole question of disarmament. In addition, there has been an allocation of further funds to certain United Nations agencies promoting these sorts of issues and a strengthening of the section within the Department of Foreign Affairs. So with appointments and new initiatives and a strengthening of the professional back-up available to the Minister and, therefore, to the Ministry and the Government as a whole, there will be such an increase in awareness of these issues within the Government, and then a corresponding and supplementing of that awareness within the community, that I believe we can make important advances. The most important of those advances required is the reaffirmation by the international community in 1985 of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In fact, those negotiations and consultations leading to that reaffirmation and review in 1985 are extremely crucial. It is not often realised what a tenuous hold that treaty has on the nation states of the world. I refer not only to the super-powers, which are making it more difficult to obtain adherence to the treaty by other countries by their failure to adhere to Article 6, which requires a reduction in their own arsenals of nuclear weapons as a sign of their good faith and, therefore, to encourage those other nations which at present do not adhere not to engage in proliferation of nuclear weapons. Countries such as Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, Israel and Syria have access, perhaps, to the technology, and perhaps they already have the technology available to them to avoid safeguards and create a situation in which these weapons can be produced. They are all in unstable situations which could trigger a conflagration not only between neighbours but throughout the world. It is certainly in our interests that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty should gain more adherents from among such countries and, of course, that the super-powers take their obligations under the treaty seriously. The Labor Government has very good credentials in this area. I think that the treaty itself was signed early, but it was not ratified until the Whitlam Government came to power; indeed, it was within a few months of that Government coming to power. With those credentials, Mr Richard Butler, on behalf of the Government, is well placed to undertake the necessary negotiations and representations of Australia's point of view. The comprehensive test ban treaty remains Australia's real goal and an interesting initiative because, together with New Zealand, we are the co- sponsors within the United Nations forums of the comprehensive test ban treaty, which applies, of course, not only to the banning of tests relating to nuclear weapons but also to any explosion involving nuclear devices. It is thought, of course, that the testing of explosive devices is itself, even if not directly linked to a nuclear weapons explosion, a further perfecting of the technology which allows those weapons to be developed. We have sometimes enjoyed the support of some of the super-powers-the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics at times; I do not think that the United States of America has been very supportive -but the fact is that we press on with that initiative. In our own region we have been active. Honourable senators and the general public are well aware of the fact that earlier this year, as a clear mark not of our distaste-that would be too weak-but of our abhorrence of the French practice of continuing to test nuclear weapons in the Pacific, we suspended uranium shipments to France. Indeed, that was done by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), face to face in conversation with his fellow member of the Socialist International, President Mitterrand. That shows the strength of the Australian Government's position in relation to our condemnation of that continual testing by the French in the Pacific. We have tried also, very recently, in the South Pacific Forum to get the agreement of all Forum countries in the South Pacific to acknowledge and endorse the concept of a nuclear free zone in the Pacific. Indeed, in the proceedings of that South Pacific Forum, held only five or six weeks ago in Canberra, it is stated that: It is recalled that in the communiques issued following Meetings over several years, they- the members- had taken a strong stand in opposition to nuclear testing and proposals for storage and dumping of nuclear waste material in the Pacific. Despite these unanimous expressions of view of independent and self-governing South Pacific countries, nuclear practices abhorrent to Forum countries continued. They commended the Australian initiative- in receiving consideration of the concept of a nuclear free zone among the Forum members. They expressed appreciation of the Australian working document which had provided the basis for their discussions and which made a valuable contribution to establishing the objectives which a zone concept would seek to achieve. In order to save time, Mr Acting Deputy President, I seek leave to incorporate the resolutions of the fourteenth South Pacific Forum in Hansard, insofar as they are relevant. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Regional Nuclear Matters The Forum considered the questions of continued nuclear testing in the South Pacific, the invitation of the French Government to Forum countries for scientists to visit and assess the situation at the nuclear test site at Mururoa , nuclear waste disposal and dumping, the South Pacific Regional Environment Programme, and the Australian proposal for a Declaration of a South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone. The Forum recognised that the French Government's invitation had been made on a bilateral basis and that it was a matter for Governments to respond as they wished. The Forum adopted the following statement of its position on nuclear matters. The Fourteenth South Pacific Forum: Recalled that in the communiques issued following Meetings over several years, they had taken a strong stand in opposition to nuclear testing and proposals for storage and dumping of nuclear waste material in the Pacific. Despite these unanimous expressions of view of independent and self-governing South Pacific countries, nuclear practices abhorrent to Forum countries continued; Reiterated they would continue to make the strongest protests and condemnations so long as nuclear testing by France or any other country continued in the South Pacific region. They also reaffirmed their opposition to proposals for the dumping and storage of nuclear waste in the Pacific area. Commended the Australian initiative in reviving consideration of the concept of a nuclear free zone among the Forum members. They expressed appreciation of the Australian working document which had provided the basis for their discussions and which made a valuable contribution to establishing the objectives which a zone concept would seek to achieve. Expressed the need for more time to consider the implications of the proposal and to carry out consultations on it. The Foreign Minister of Australia undertook to continue consultations on a bilateral basis to encourage further development of the zone concept both within the framework of the Forum and more widely. He undertook to provide the Forum countries with background on nuclear free zone concepts in other parts of the world. Noted that there had been a wide agreement on the general principles of the concept as submitted by Australia. It affirmed that in further addressing the zone proposal it would be important to uphold the principles of freedom of navigation and overflight as provided in international law and in the Treaty obligations of some Forum members. It recognised the sovereign right of Governments to make their own decisions on their alliance and defence requirements including access to their ports and airfields by the vessels and aircraft of other countries. Expressed their commitment to advancing the cause of general disarmament; supporting the negotiations and conclusion of an effective Treaty which would outlaw all forms of nuclear testing by all States in all environments; and preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and nuclear explosive devices particularly through support for the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Wapons. Decided to place the question on the Agenda of its 1984 Session to provide further opportunity for consideration and examination of the concept of a nuclear free zone. Senator TATE —I thank the Senate. What I am trying to point out is that not only have we taken initiatives proper to us as a government and as a nation; we have tried to incorporate in a wider movement the sentiments that have been expressed by individual South Pacific nations. They are now reaching a stage at which I believe at the next South Pacific Forum we may hope to see a declaration by those countries of their adherence to the concept of a nuclear free zone. It is not such a frightening or unusual prospect, although sometimes it is portrayed as absurd and unattainable. Already in relation to the Antarctic there is such an understanding amongst nations. If we can carry that sort of approach through to our own area of the South Pacific, we shall be doing a great service. In relation to the Indian Ocean zone of peace proposal, we have-as was not the case with the previous Australian Government-indicated our support for the deliberations that will need to proceed in order to get that concept back into the international arena of debate. I could mention one or two other matters but I think that I have stated enough, in the short time allowed in this contribution to the Senate today, to indicate that this Government has taken steps to achieve what we would all wish to see achieved-namely, a reduction in the threat which hovers over the whole of mankind, a threat which could bring human history to an end. The whole question of armaments and the militarisation of the world is being addressed by this Government. I believe that I have pointed out that in quite a robust manner we have taken some new initiatives, within an overall strengthening of the resources of government, devoted to these matters. Therefore, I commend the Government's program and, in particular, the Foreign Minister, Mr Bill Hayden, for his approach to these matters. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(12.59) —I acknowledge that we are perhaps breaking a precedent of not debating the outcomes of a conference of the Inter- Parliamentary Union until the official reports are received from the Secretariat , which involves a time lag of six to nine months. However, two of us today will be debating some of the events surrounding this year's IPU Conference. Significant events occurred at this year's seventieth IPU Conference in Seoul, Korea. The condolence motions from this Senate and the House of Representatives following the brutal massacre in Rangoon involving 17 senior Koreans, were passed on to the Government and peoples of Korea by the Australian Delegation, and because of the close bonds of friendship, fostered in war and subsequently in trade relations, the sincerity of those expressions of sympathy was appreciably received. Further tokens of the closeness of our two countries was demonstrated several days earlier when the leader of the delegation, Ralph Jacobi, laid a wreath at the Kapyong Memorial and 8 kilometres to the north I placed one at the 3rd Royal Australian Regiment Memorial where Australian bravery touched the hearts of the Korean people. Both these two solemn events were attended by the whole of the Australian delegation who were escorted in a dignified manner through a guard of honour of Korean school children in national dress and Korean soldiers to appropriate music played by the local school bank. Korea, rapidly emerging from a developing to a developed nation, demonstrated to the delegates a most generous hospitality. It delivered a highly sophisticated organisation structure supporting the conference, and continuously demonstrated its rich cultural heritage. The consensus among delegates was that this seventieth Conference of the IPU was one of the best organised and, until the brutal massacre at the Rangoon Martyr's Mausoleum, the most congenial of conferences. Despite that shocking and momentous event, our Korean hosts ensured that the program was continued with dignity and a calmness of the highest order. Korea is one of the economic miracles of the modern world. Although the country has a history of 5,000 years, during the last 1,000 it has endured over 900 years of aggression and not on one occasion did it wage war against its neighbours-it was always the victim. In recent time it suffered 36 years of oppression under Japanese colonial rule. It was almost overrun by North Korean forces but for about a 10 per cent area around the Port of Pusan from which the United Nations forces began the push that succeeded in driving the North Korean aggressors across the thirty-eighth parallel, a very artificial demarkation line that was devised by the great powers after the Second World War which divided North and South Korea. Similar divisions have caused traumatic problems in other countries-for example, East and West Germany, Berlin, and North and South Vietnam. Military and political confrontation between North and South continues to this day with North Korean forces having a superiority of equipment in the ratio of 2 :1. The International Institute of Strategy in London indicates the North Koreans as having 2,500 tanks, 740 fighter aircraft and 450 naval ships-far more than it needs to defend itself. However, with a highly disciplined army supported by 40,000 United States troops, the boundaries of the Republic of Korea are secure. However, the government is very conscious of undermining elements within society, initiated often from the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, commonly known as North Korea. This caution is understandable since the capital, Seoul, is only 45 kilometres from one of North Korea's tunnels which, when discovered, was large enough for tanks and other heavy equipment to drive through. The border situation is still precarious as 13 of the Australian party discovered when visiting the armistice centre on the border at Pan Won-Jong the day after the assassination attempt on the President. With the internal feud in North Korea triggered off by Kim Il-sung's scheme to put his son Jong-il in his place as hereditary heir in a communist hierarchy, and with a worsening economic plight imposed on the populace, Pyongyang could well try and divert the domestic unrest by resorting to their time-old tactic of embarking on a military adventure. We live here in Australia enjoying a security unknown to most of the countries of Asia whose borders are under pressures. We often do not appreciate the attitudes of others who live in countries whose security is continuously under threat. The 1950 Korean war rendered 10 million people separated from their families and left a largely agarian supported population hungry. Due to its determination Korea is now a successful industrial power presenting both challenges and opportunities for Australian business. South Korea had to fight hard to prove that it could host an IPU conference. It suffered abuse at Rome and Helsinki when principally North Korea and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics delegates attempted to remove the venue from Seoul to an alternative site. So desperate was this attempt that North Korea offered financial inducements for delegates to vote against the motion and a lesser payment for an abstention. Despite these pressures a big majority of nations remained firm and it could be said that it was a diplomatic success for the Republic of Korea. Since that time South Korea has suffered two major tragedies, the participants of which came from Russia and North Korea. The first was the destruction of a civilian 747 airliner with the loss of 269 lives, including five Australians. This barbaric action left a cloud of suffering and tension hovering over the whole of the Korean Peninsula. The second was the brutal massacre at the Martyrs' Mausoleum in Rangoon involving 17 high ranking Koreans, including four Ministers. I am proud to say that the Australian delegation, led by the determined and indomitable no- nonsense approach of the honourable member for Hawker, Ralph Jacobi, was instrumental in strengthening a rather weak Swiss resolution against the first atrocity. I seek leave to incorporate the resolution in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows- Deeply deploring the brutal destruction of a Korean Airlines civilian aircraft on Sept. 1983 by a Soviet fighter plane, resulting in the death of 269 innocent men, women and children from 15 countries on board, Noting that this tragic incident calls into question the safety of civil aviation and constitutes a grave violation of international conventions and customs, as well as of humanitarian principles. Expressing its indignation at the flagrant disregard for human life shown by those Soviet authorities responsible for this tragedy, Emphasising that such action in these difficult and dangerous times is not the way to contribute to the cause of international peace and co-operation, While recognising the importance of the principles of territorial integrity, emphasising that only internationally agreed procedures should be used in response to intrusion into the airspace of a State, Desirous of being fully acquainted with the facts of the matter, Stressing the necessity for a comprehensive and adequate explanation based on an independent and international inquiry into the facts related to the incident, Stressing the importance of adhering to international civil aviation laws and procedures purposefully designed to secure the safety of international air traffic, Noting that the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) has initiated timely action on the incident with a view to preventing any recurrence of similar tragedies, 1. Expresses its profound sympathy to the families of all the victims of the 15 nations involved, to the National Assembly, the Inter-Parliamentary Group and the people of the Republic of Korea; 2. Calls on all governments and the ICAO to ensure greater safety for civil air traffic, such as through an international communication and navigational system for civilian aircraft, including those which may stray accidentally off course into closed airspace of high political and military sensitivity; 3. Appeals to the Governments represented in the ICAO to support the proposed amendments to the Chicago Convention of 1944 on air transport in order to avoid the repetition of such a tragedy; these amendments relate to the following points: (a) An undertaking to refrain from the use of force against civil aircraft; (b) An obligation to take measures ensuring better co-operation between civil and military aircraft; 4. Also appeals to all Governments to give an assurance that the internationally recognised codes of behaviour relating to civilian aircraft will be observed in the future; 5. Demands a full and fair international inquiry into the incident, such as that of the ICAO, and expects the full co-operation of all parties concerned including the Soviet Union with all aspects of such inquiries, including the recovery and disclosure of all material evidence; 6. Insists that full and just compensation be paid by the Soviet Union to the families of the victims according to the principles of the rule of law; Senator WATSON —There will be a long term implication to the tragedy extending far beyond the borders of Korea. For example, Japanese eyes have now been opened to the military realities of its Soviet neighbour. The plane incident is likely to strengthen the hand of Prime Minister Nakasone, who has strongly urged, and has taken some steps in this direction, that Japan should increase its capability to defend itself with its own forces and protect sea lanes for up to 1,600 kilometres offshore. Having previously described the shooting down of the Korean airliner, which crashed into the Sea of Japan not far from the northernmost main island of Hokkaido, as a 'barbaric act and an affront to humanity', Mr Nakasone told the Diet the Japan Socialist Party's platform of unarmed neutrality was unrealistic. In closing, I wish to draw the attention of the Senate to words from a President of vision at the inaugural ceremony held at the Se Jong cultural centre where the Republic of Korea President Chun Doo Hwan expressed faith in parliamentary democracy that transcends differences in political and social systems and involves a resolve to deal with the problems of the modern international community through debate and dialogue. He went on to say that trade wars constitute another dangerous dimension of world conflict and that it is always possible for an economic war to lead to a hot war. He has a very realistic approach because he acknowledged that all peoples in the world are inseparable members of one global village. He also acknowledged that the world community has been made interdependent by revolutionary changes in transportation and communications technology, which has expanded the scope of international exchanges beyond anything imaginable in the past. This far-sighted President said we are all in the same boat and that we share the same common destiny. He said that with instability and uncertainty mounting in the world, the danger of the kind of war that could obliterate the human race lurks everywhere. He pointed out that the global powers are not only in possession of nuclear weapons that can instantaneously destroy the world; they are accelerating the arms race. He went on to say that the mutual knowledge of the destructiveness of nuclear weapons makes it impossible for a nuclear war to break out. He also said that conventional wisdom says: 'That which is unthinkable to most people will not happen'. However, he said that the unthinkable is not impossible and that this is a warning to those with any easy going attitude about nuclear war, because such a lax and deceptive attitude could invite disaster. The President said that in the history of human conflict no country has ever developed and stockpiled a new weapon only to scrap it without ever using it. I believe that we should long remember those words. In conclusion, the Seoul Conference of the IPU was well organised and gave new blood and new life to the Union, making it a global forum useful for discussing many international issues. I wish to thank my colleagues, particularly the leader, Ralph Jacobi, Senator Ron Elstob, and the members of the House of Representatives-Peter Coleman, Bruce Goodluck, Russell Gorman, Noel Hicks and Len Keogh. I wish also to thank support staff David Nimmo, Bert Nicholls, Douglas Blake and foreign affairs adviser, Michael Potts, for their contribution , co-operation and good fellowship. We look forward at a later date to resumption of the President's visit to South East Asia and Australia with his intended promise to promote peace and to orientate regional collaboration in a multi-polarised world community. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia)(1.10) —I also rise to give my thanks to the South Korean Government for organising the very fine Seventieth Conference of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. It was undoubtedly one of the best organised conferences that I have been to or read about. It was of great credit to the South Korean Government, which went to a lot of trouble to welcome delegates from all countries. It is unfortunate that Russia and the Eastern bloc countries did not attend that Conference. The IPU enables politicians from all countries of the world to get together to try to resolve the many problems that beset the world. I believe it is an important forum. I would like Australia always to participate in these meetings. In the past, politicians from all sides have condemned the IPU on the grounds that it is not worth while. I do not take that view. I believe that Australia has a point of view to put and that it should be put internationally. Having attended IPU conferences at Helsinki and Seoul, I believe that Australians are well respected throughout the international community. On all occasions, the word of the Australian delegation is taken. On many occasions, its advice on resolutions that have been passed has been fully agreed with. As Senator Watson has said, Australia played a great role in strengthening the contribution of the Conference on the destruction of the South Korean airliner that was shot down by the Russians. Not only did we insist that that action be condemned but we looked to the future to see that people travelling on civilian airlines would travel in safety. We asked that the international communications and navigational systems for civilian aircraft-including those aircraft which stray accidentally from their courses into closed air space of high political and military sensitivity-be guarded so that incidents such as the one in question which led to the death of nearly 300 people will never be seen again. The Australian delegation was very forthright on many issues and played a prominent role in the IPU conference. As I said, it had the respect of people from across the world who attended the Conference. We all worked on different sections of the matters before the Conference. I worked on the committee dealing with education, science, culture and environment. I believe that the world must resolve the problems in these areas. We must solve the problems of war. We are currently spending $1,300m a minute on defence preparations. I do not believe we can continue to do that. That is why it is very important for all politicians to meet from time to time to try to reduce the amount of finance that we are spending on armaments. If some small portion of this huge sum of money that is spent on war and the preparation for war were spent on education and relieving the poverty of the world, I believe that the world could start to live in peace. I do not believe that the world can live in peace while there is poverty and ignorance. We must put a large portion of the finance spent on war and defence into other avenues. I believe that there is plenty in this world for all if it were better organised. It is at conferences such as the IPU that ways for doing this can be found. It is important to have dialogues between politicians from every country in the world. As I said earlier, I was disappointed that the Russians and the countries of the Eastern bloc did not attend. Certainly the Russians would have been criticised for shooting down the South Korean airliner, but I believe that one must face up to one's actions. Any government that commits such an atrocity must face up to its responsibilities. Any person who attended the IPU had to come away from that Conference better informed and better able to discuss problems of international concern. I met Mr Lee, the Korean Defence Minister, some days before he left with the President of South Korea on the trip to Burma. I had long discussions with him. He and my wife had lunch together. We had our photos taken. Forty-eight hours after that, he was killed. That is the tragedy. It is a hopeless situation when politicians trying to resolve problems in the world must face the possibility of assassination. The attempted assassination of the President reminded everyone at that Conference that all of us could be vulnerable at some time or another. I met many other people at the Conference. I met Mr Chi, who was scheduled to come to Australia. Naturally, he did not come. Mr Chi is a friend of Australia, as are many other politicians. I found that the Korean politicians were alarmed that very little contact had been made with the Australian Labor Party. We did not feel any concern about that in the Labor Party, but the South Korean politicians were concerned about it. They had paid attention mainly to the parties of the former Government before the last election and they had neglected the Australian Labor Party. I informed them that to the best of my knowledge there was no concern on our part. We wanted to have dialogues with every country on earth. We did not hold it against the South Koreans that they did not make contact with the Labor Party. They said that in future they most certainly would contact people of all political persuasions. That is the type of attitude to be found and the sorts of problems that can be overcome at such conferences. With better understanding we can help each other. We can probably trade better with other countries and have friendlier relations with them. We can reduce tensions and consult each other about problems and hot spots that might arise, especially in our area. After talking with representatives of many of the smaller nations, which I will not name, I found that small nations, by talking to Australians of all political persuasions, accepted very well the Australian point of view. Smaller nations have a fear of super-powers. I found that the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics are great dominant powers in the eyes of smaller nations. I think it is important for Australia to keep contributing to these conferences because Australia's point of view is taken seriously. I think that is important. We can help reduce world tension by talking to people. Australia offers an alternative. It has always had the attitude of the desirability of giving the other bloke a fair go. I think that attitude flows from the delegates, of whatever political persuasion, who represent this country . All delegates who represented Australia did a very good job. We were as one people putting a point of view, trying to bring about better understanding. That was the important thing. I have always believed that Australia should project itself a lot further. I am a member of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, and in future I would like to see politicians at times go out and talk to people from other countries. As I said, I think we have a point of view to put, and we can help reduce world tension. I also believe that we can increase trade and thereby help ourselves. That should be a joint effort by people of all political persuasions, and would only improve the world situation. I would also like to thank all of the staff who worked with the delegation. Mr Bert Nicholls, the Deputy-Clerk of the Senate, was secretary to the delegation and did a magnificant job. Without his help the work of the delegation would have been impossible. Mr Douglas Blake, from the House of Representatives, and Mr Potts and Mr David Nimmo all played a very important part. I must congratulate all of my parliamentary colleagues. I will not name them all; Senator Watson has already done that. They set a good example on behalf of the Australian Parliament. They served the Parliament well and served their country well, and that is how it should be with international delegations. As I say, I hope that the Australian Parliament always sends delegates to the IPU. At least we have access to other politicians and we can put points of view. That will lead to an improvement in our world. When the report of this 70th Inter- Parliamentary Union conference comes down I will make a further contribution. I have much pleasure in supplementing Senator Watson's comments. Senator CHILDS(New South Wales)(1.22) —I would like to use the opportunity of this first reading debate on the radiocommunications legislation to join with my colleague Senator Tate, from Tasmania, in drawing attention to the fact that the General Assembly of the United Nations has designated the week beginning 24 October-United Nations Day-as Disarmament Week. Disarmament Week will provide an opportunity for governments, peace and nuclear disarmament organisations and others to increase public awareness of the dangers of the arms race, to mobilise public opinion and to create an atmosphere conducive to progress in disarmament negotiations. It provides for mobilisation of world public opinion, and at no time has that been more urgent than it is today. Let us look at some of the reasons. The United Nations, in a report published in 1981, compiled some numbing facts on the relationship between disarmament and development. The arms race continues unchecked. I would like to use some figures from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute-SIPRI. It points out that world military spending totals $US625 billion. That is at least $110 for each man, woman and child on earth. Fifty million people are directly or indirectly engaged in military activities. In a world where energy resources are supposed to be in scarce supply, 6 per cent of the world's petrol consumption is used for military purposes, and one quarter of all research funds goes to military research and development-surely a shocking indictment of the world that we live in today. The international trade in conventional arms is staggering, amounting to $US26 billion a year. Trade in arms traffic is carried out by both developing and developed countries, particularly the Soviet Union, the United States, France, the United Kingdom, Italy, Brazil and Israel. No one needs to be reminded that the development of nuclear weapons technology has reached frightening proportions. Nuclear over-kill is the hallmark of today's arms race. Fifty thousand nuclear warheads are now deployed. Their combined explosive power is one million times greater than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. Up to 8 per cent of the world's total output is spent on the arms race. Yet the United Nations points out that one child in four suffers from malnutrition; four out of five children in rural areas do not have adequate water or sanitation; two out of five six to 11-year-olds do not go to school; and four out of five children have no modern health care. In fact, the world's military spends every four hours the equivalent of the total budget of the United Nations Children's Fund. The building of one strategic bomber costs more than the $US100m that the World Health Organisation spent wiping out smallpox. The Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, Senator Susan Ryan, in a speech in Canberra to the International Symposium on the Consequences of Nuclear War for Australia, revealed that even in our own affluent country the Government spent in excess of $4 billion on defence in 1982. This is when homelessness, unemployment and poverty have been increasing daily over recent years. So where are our priorities? Are we really committed to ensuring decent health, education and nutritional standards for all-that means all the people of the world-or do we see world survival only through the myth of military superiority? Unfortunately the statistics I have just presented speak for themselves. Efforts to ensure arms control and disarmament are deadlocked. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, in its 1982 year book, stated succinctly that the state of play was, as it summed it up, that no progress had been made. Relations between the United States and the Soviet Union are at an all time low. The Soviet Union is threatening to walk out from the Intermediate Nuclear Force negotiations as a reaction to the deployment of missiles in Europe, and the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks-START-which reconvened in Geneva earlier this month have come to a stop. The talks are certainly at a very critical stage. It cannot be emphasised enough how crucial progress in super-power dialogue is in the achievement of disarmament. Yet the dialogue between the super-powers is sadly lacking. President Reagan, in his address to the 38th Session of the United Nations General Assembly, stated: . . . progress in weapons technology has far outstripped the progress towards peace. Of course many people in the United States are critical of President Reagan. In an article in the International Herald Tribune, headed 'When Talk Undercuts Arms Talks', Anthony Lewis said: It is a more dangerous world today than when Mr Reagan took office in 1981. Ordinary communication with Moscow has virtually ceased. US leaders talk about the relationship more and more in military terms-compelling the ordinary citizen , as Mr Kennan says- referring to the former United States Ambassador to the Soviet Union- 'to conclude that some sort of military showdown is the only conceivable denouement'. So responsible people are very concerned about the situation. However, I think there is a great deal of hope in the United States for the discussion that is taking place there. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a document from the House of Representatives in the United States headed 'Calling for a Mutual and Verifiable Freeze on and Reduction in Nuclear Weapons'. It is a report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs to the Congress itself. Leave granted. The document read as follows- CALLING FOR A MUTUAL AND VERIFIABLE FREEZE ON AND REDUCTION IN NUCLEAR WEAPONS The Committee on Foreign Affairs to whom was referred the joint resolution (H.J . Res. 13) calling for a mutual and verifiable freeze on and reduction in nuclear weapons, having considered the same, report favourably thereon with amendments and recommend that the joint resolution as amended do pass. The amendments are shown in the reported resolution, with the matter proposed to be stricken shown in linetype and the matter proposed to be inserted shown in italic type. PURPOSE OF THE RESOLUTION The purpose of the resolution is to mandate objectives for the conduct of the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks (START) between the United States and the Soviet Union. Much as the legislation ratifying the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty ( SALT I) did for the SALT II Treaty, House Joint Resolution 13 mandates objectives for the conduct of the START negotiations. These objectives are specified in House Joint Resolution 13 and described in the committee comment. COMMITTEE COMMENT The Committee on Foreign Affairs believes that progress in arms control and reduction is essential. Congress has a clear responsibility to help formulate a START negotiating posture that contributes to such progress. Since Congress will have to approve the eventual final product of START, it should help form the U.S . negotiating posture if arms reduction is to receive broad bipartisan support. House Joint Resolution 13 accomplishes this purpose by mandating objectives for the conduct of the START negotiations, including the negotiation of an immediate , mutual, and verifiable freeze on and reductions in nuclear weapons and their delivery systems. OBJECTIVES FOR START-A MUTUAL AND VERIFIABLE FREEZE ON NUCLEAR WEAPONS The major contribution of House Joint Resolution 13 is the establishment of general objectives for the conduct of the START negotiations. The guidelines for START in House Joint Resolution 13 as amended are: (1) Pursuing the objective of negotiating an immediate, mutual, and verifiable freeze. (2) Deciding when and how to achieve a mutual verifiable freeze on the testing, production, and further deployment of nuclear warheads, missiles, and other delivery systems. (3) Consistent with pursuing the objective of negotiating an immediate, mutual, and verifiable freeze, giving special attention to destabilizing weapons, especially those which give either nation capabilities which confer upon it even the hypothetical advantages of a first strike. (4) Proceeding from this mutual and verifiable freeze, pursuing substantial, equitable, and verifiable reductions through numerical ceilings, annual percentages, or any other equally effective and verifiable means of strengthening strategic stability. (5) Preserving present limitations and controls on nuclear weapons and nuclear delivery systems. (6) Incorporating ongoing negotiations in Geneva on intermediate-range nuclear systems into the START negotiations. The objectives for START outlined in House Joint Resolution 13 incorporate the central elements of the nuclear freeze proposal. While much has been made of the grassroots nature of the freeze movement and its growing political popularity, far too little attention has been paid to the fact that a mutual and verifiable United States-Soviet nuclear weapons freeze is a sensible and workable arms control proposal. A United States-Soviet nuclear weapons freeze is based on three fundamental principles: First, it is grounded in the consensus view that nuclear parity presently describes the overall nuclear balance between the two superpowers; second, a freeze must be mutual to be successful; and third, a freeze must be adequately verifiable. The existence of parity has been confirmed by high-ranking officials in both Republican and Democratic administrations. Officials of the Reagan administration have also acknowledged this fact. None of the present Joint Chiefs of Staff have expressed their willingness to trade overall U.S. capabilities for those of the Soviet Union. The committee has also explicitly stated that the objectives of House Joint Resolution 13 must be pursued consistent with essential equivalence in overall nuclear capabilities. This consensus view is confirmed by the current structure of United States and Soviet strategic forces. While the Soviet Union has more intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) and submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) launchers, the United States has more heavy bombers and more strategic nuclear weapons. The Soviet Union has an advantage in missile throw-weight; the United States has an edge in missile reliability. The United States also has a far greater number of SLBM's and heavy bombers ready to launch at any one time. Much discussion in the past few years has centred on the possibility of a '' window of vulnerability'' whereby the Soviet Union could theoretically destroy U .S. missiles in their silos in a first strike, leaving the United States the choice of destroying the Soviet Union in a second strike, knowing the United States could be similarly devastated in a third strike, or reaching an unfavorable political accommodation with the Soviet Union. This scenario the committee believes, is divorced from reality. To destroy the 1,052 U.S. ICBM silos, the Soviet Union would need at least 2,000 perfectly coordinated warheads, all of them spaced and timed to avoid mutual destruction by the phenomenon of ''fratricide,'' which can cause the nuclear explosions of some warheads to affect other warheads before detonation. In addition, the largest Soviet flight test has involved less than 1 percent of the number of missiles that would be required for a disarming Soviet first strike. Even if all of these extreme obstacles were overcome, the Soviet attack would kill 7-15 million Americans immediately and perhaps up to 20 million more through secondary effects. These casualty rates are 10 to 20 times the number of American combat deaths in World War II. To assume that, first the President would blithely ignore the incoming Soviet missiles and not order U.S. ICBM's launched, and second, not retaliate when faced with 17 to 35 million American deaths, is an incredible scenario with no basis in reality. Finally, the ''window of vulnerability'' is reciprocal. While the Soviet Union has more ICBM launchers, it has achieved this advantage by placing 75 percent of its strategic nuclear forces in vulnerable ICBM's. The United States has placed only 24 percent of its nuclear weapons in its ICBM force. Aside from providing the United States with a staggering, versatile retaliatory capability, existing U.S. short-range attack missiles and Minuteman III ICBM's give the United States significant counterforce capability against three-quarters of the Soviet Union's nuclear arsenal. In contrast, the majority of U.S. retaliatory weapons are on stations in invulnerable submarines. Thus, the theoretical window of vulnerability is reciprocal and makes any first strike a dangerous gamble with unacceptable risks. The inescapable fact of effective nuclear parity in United States-Soviet nuclear arsenals leads to the second fundamental concept on which a freeze is based; that a freeze be mutual to be successful. The nuclear freeze as proposed in House Joint Resolution 13 will not unilaterally preclude any defense program proposed by the Reagan administration. Issues such as when to implement a freeze and how to deal with replacement of older nuclear systems must be negotiated in the START framework. A freeze agreement would come after negotiations which will be mutual and will not be unilateral. Contrary to the contention that the United States has engaged in unilateral disarmament during the 1970's, both the United States and the Soviet Union made major improvements in their strategic nuclear forces in the 1970's. While in the last decade, the Soviet Union deployed 5 new ICBM's, the United States outproduced the Soviet Union in numbers of warheads by 1,100 introduced Poseidon and Trident SLBM's, upgraded its ICBM force, and added over 1,000 short-range attack missiles to the B-52 bomber force. These improvements on both sides have brought nuclear arsenals to a level well beyond what is needed to preserve deterrence. The central reality of the strategic balance today is that neither side can start and win a nuclear war. One Poseidon submarine with Trident missiles can cause at least 25 million Soviet fatalities. 5 million more than the Soviet Union suffered in World War II . Standard computations of destructive power continue to show that each of the three legs of the U.S. strategic triad can kill one-third of the Soviet population and destroy two-thirds of its industry even after a Soviet first strike. New U.S. weapons as bargaining chips are alleged to be necessary to achieve prohibitions on new Soviet weapons. But by banning new Soviet nuclear weapons en bloc, the freeze renders this theory obsolete. Soviet efforts to gain a unilateral advantage in nuclear weaponry under the current Reagan administration START proposals would be blocked. Near-term Soviet advantages in nuclear weapons systems production could be blunted. Arming in order to disarm brings only higher levels of nuclear forces. The history of previous arms control negotiations is replete with examples of weapons which began as bargaining chips and became virtually impossible to control once production began. The failure to prevent the development and deployment of weapons systems originally intended as bargaining chips in past arms control negotiations has undermined the security of both sides, symbolized by the failure to prohibit MIRV capability in the SALT I negotiations. This led directly to vulnerable ICBM forces on both sides. The third fundamental principle on which a United States-Soviet nuclear weapons freeze is based is that of verifiability. Testing on and deployment of Soviet systems can be effectively verified by U.S. national technical means. In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, former Under Secretary of Defense for Research, Development, Testing, and Engineering William Perry stated ''at the nuclear weapons production stage, the United States has been able to monitor Soviet activities at the design bureau and production plants so that every Soviet ICBM test has been predicted before if occurs.'' Beyond national technical means, the Soviet Union has agreed to unmanned seismic stations and onsite inspection procedures in the negotiations for a comprehensive test ban treaty. Such procedures would prove highly useful in the verification of a mutual and verifiable nuclear weapons freeze. It should also be pointed out that uncertainties in verification of nuclear weapons production can be compensated for by the high confidence in verification regarding testing and deployment. Furthermore, a freeze would mean a stop to all activities in any weapons program to be included so that the detection of even one new missile or aircraft would be evidence of a violation. This simplifies the verification over that required for monitoring a ceiling. In assessing adequate verification, the threshold that should be established is confidence that any violation that would significantly affect our security would have a high probability of being detected. In short, the fact of nuclear parity makes a mutual and verifiable weapons- freeze a workable and attractive proposal. Such a freeze would provide a complete halt to another round of the arms race, thereby enhancing US security. OTHER OBJECTIVES FOR START The committee realises that a mutual and verifiable freeze on United States- Soviet nuclear arsenals is not an end in itself. For this reason, House Joint Resolution 13 also calls for substantial, equitable, and verifiable reductions proceeding from a freeze. These reductions can best be achieved after a freeze has been negotiated to completely halt the nuclear arms race. The committee recognises, however, and House Joint Resolution 13 states that concurrent and complementary arms control proposals consistent with pursuing the overriding objectives of negotiating an immediate, mutual, and verifiable freeze should also be considered. Another START objective sought by House Joint Resolution 13 is the negotiation of limits on destabilising weapons, especially first-strike weapons. Destabilising weapons are those which have the capability of destroying the other side's strategic nuclear weapons thereby reducing confidence in their deterrent value. Weapons with a combination of high accuracy, multiple warheads, large explosive force, and short flight time are the most threatening of these weapons, since they have the potential capability of destroying protected hard targets like ICBM silos and command posts in a disarming first strike. In particular, the committee believes that such first-strike weapons, which give either nation capabilities which confer upon it even the hypothetical advantage of a first strike, should receive special priority in the START negotiations. Other weapons such as antisubmarine warfare technologies and sophisticated air defenses which could prevent nuclear weapons from being launched or reaching their targets could also be destabilising if breakthroughs in these technologies provided high confidence in their success, and it is the committee's intent, therefore, that every effort should be made to reach agreement on such systems as well. Finally, the commitee believes that the START framework should incorporate ongoing negotiations in Geneva on intermediate-range nuclear systems. These systems are inextricably linked to strategic nuclear forces on both sides and negotiations on these systems should be integrated with START. Such incorporation would strengthen the linkage between US strategic and theater nuclear forces and therefore strengthen the political cohesiveness and unity of the NATO alliance. The committee also believes that the US position in the negotiations of START must be the product of close consultations with the NATO allies to insure that a common position on START can be developed that is not inconsistent with existing US commitments to those allies. In conclusion, the committee strongly reiterates that House Joint Resolution 13 is a bipartisan arms control approach. Both committee Democrats and committee Republicans have supported this joint resolution and believe it establishes the objectives that best insure the results at START that the American people have demanded. Senator CHILDS —The document refers to the world-wide movement which is becoming a common denominator in discussions in an attempt to have a nuclear freeze movement. The United Nations is a forum that can make known the shared concern of its member nations on issues such as disarmament. The United Nations devotes a considerable amount of its time to discussing disarmament. In 1978 the General Assembly convened specially to discuss the arms race and the achievement of disarmament. In 1982 the Second Special Session on Disarmament was convened. A feature of this session was the strong march for disarmament in New York of a million people. Yet, in spite of mass support for peace and disarmament and the high hopes of many United Nations members, the Second Special Session of the United Nations was a failure. No agreement was reached on a comprehensive program of disarmament. Everyone, of course, supports and accepts the need for disarmament. Yet many nations are reluctant to put their words into action. Efforts must be exerted to ensure that the principles and resolutions of the United Nations are adhered to by all member nations. Australia is such a nation. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Bill Hayden, in his address to the United Nations General Assembly on 4 October 1983 pointed out: We have the charter. We have the principles. What we lack is the consistent will to implement them-a sufficient commitment to this institution which is the real and only expression of the international community. There is a recognition that the United Nations has a central role to play in negotiations to bring about disarmament. This negotiating role is largely carried out by the 40-member Committee on Disarmament, which is known also as the Conference on Disarmament, which is based in Geneva. The Committee on Disarmament is the main multinational negotiating forum on disarmament matters. It was constituted following the 1978 General Assembly Special Session. All five nuclear weapon states-that is, the United States, the Soviet Union, France, the United Kingdom and China-are involved in the negotiations. The 157-member General Assembly can also consider questions on disarmament, arms control and the maintenance of international peace. The General Assembly's First Committee devotes its entire agenda to disarmament and international security matters. The General Assembly also has a subsidiary body known as the United Nations Disarmament Commission. Its function is to make recommendations on various disarmament issues. It also follows up the relevant decisions of the General Assembly's 1978 and 1982 special sessions on disarmament. I am pleased to say that the Australian Government is committed to the arms control and disarmament goals of the United Nations. Foreign Affairs Minister, Bill Hayden, in his address to the General Assembly, stressed that these goals should be developed further and urged all nations to adhere to them. Evidence of this Government's commitment to disarmament is the announcement of the appointment of Richard Butler as Ambassador for Disarmament. As my colleague Senator Tate said, Ambassador Butler is already in New York representing Australia at the General Assembly's First Committee discussions. He will also be the Australian representative at the Geneva-based Committee on Disarmament and will be liaising with peace and disarmament groups in Australia. Within the Department of Foreign Affairs, the section on disarmament and arms control will be strengthened and upgraded. Efforts are now under way to establish an independent peace research body. I was fortunate in July of this year to see the SIPRI, the Swedish organisation. I believe it will be a great acquisition to the movement for peace and disarmament in Australia to have such a body operating. The feasibility of introducing peace studies in schools and tertiary institutions is also being considered by the Labor Government. The Labor Government intends to take a leading role in demanding a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty which will ban all nuclear tests by all nations in all environments. This is vital if France is to cease nuclear testing in the Pacific . The Labor Government supports proposals for an Indian Ocean zone of peace and a South West Pacific nuclear free zone. A priority of this Government is to urge the Committee on Disarmament to set up a working group which would negotiate an agreement preventing the spread of the arms race into outer space. I refer to the platform of the Australian Labor Party because it refers to a significant part of our objectives as being the maintenance of world peace, an independent Australian position in world affairs, recognition of the right of all nations to self-determination and independence, regional and international agreement for arms control and disarmament, and the provision of economic and social aid to developing countries. I mention this because under the heading ' Principles of Action' the objectives of the Australian Labor Party are set out. We there refer to the need for constitutional action through Australian State parliaments. We refer also to the ongoing action by organised community groups, including trade unions. I am proud to say that I participate in this in a dual role. In Sydney I am the convenor of the Nuclear Disarmament Co-ordinating Committee, which husbands the various disparate groups which are involved in nuclear disarmament. I am pleased to say that this Committee represents a broad cross-section of organisations which can put 60,000 people on the streets of Sydney-they have done it for two years in succession-to demonstrate the fact that the people of Australia are concerned about these issues. I believe it is that combination of parliamentary initiative, international initiative and the movement of the Australian people that might give us the opportunity of setting aside the mad race we have in the world today of weapons and nuclear weapons. Senator COLEMAN(Western Australia)(1.38) —I take the opportunity at the first reading stage of a money Bill to raise an issue which is causing a deal of concern in my State of Western Australia. That concern emanates from a series of newspaper reports in which the State Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Mr Hassell , has been highly critical of the Burke Labor Government. No one would deny the right of the Opposition, particularly the Leader and the Deputy Leader, to be critical of government, but I make the point that Mr Hassell is being totally destructive of those people whom he has chosen to get into his sights. He has always demonstrated a tendency not only to put his foot in his mouth but also to make sure that the entire leg goes in. Perhaps honourable senators remember that when he was Minister for Community Welfare he issued a directive to his department, the Department of Community Welfare, that when a woman found that she had to leave a domestic situation because it was abhorrent to her, even if she had to take the children, she was not to receive financial support from the Department until such time as the husband had been consulted. Many women and many refuges, of course, were disadvantaged by this action. As I am sure the Senate will appreciate, when a woman chooses to leave a domestic situation, particularly if it happens to be in the middle of the night, it is generally because of one of a number of reasons. It could be because of violence being demonstrated to either her or her children, alcoholism, or a number of other matters. To deny those people financial support at that harrowing time is something which I felt was reprehensible. One can only presume that he is Deputy Leader of the Opposition because of his tendency to put his foot in his mouth every time he opens it. I have no doubt he will remain in opposition for a long time. Mr Hassell is endeavouring to ensure that when the Government makes grants or opportunities to organisations with which he has a disagreement he gets the most insulting publicity in the newspapers. A grant was made to the Homosexual Counselling and Information Service for a community education program. This money came from the wage pause grants. It was money that had been agreed to by a very well represented and community-based committee which views all of these determinations. That committee had decided that this amount of $30,820 should be used by the Homosexual Counselling and Information Service for a community education program. The headlines to that article in the Daily News relating to that grant stated: 'Gay Grant an insult-Hassell'. Mr Hassell said in that article: My God, what are they advocating? The spreading of AIDS? Obviously the Minister is only demonstrating a lack of awareness of how AIDS is transmitted as well. This was a grant for counselling and information. The second matter comes under a heading in the West Australian where he was angered by a Trades and Labour Council job cost. The money was allocated from the wage pause grants. The article stated: . . . the Government had allocated $10,645 to the TLC to employ a library and research assistant. This money had come from wage-pause savings and was supposed to be used on job- creation schemes. I do not know what Mr Hassell thinks a library and research assistant is. Obviously he does not believe that it belongs to a job creation scheme. It is a paltry sum of money. The important thing he forgot to mention was that, once again, the allocation was recommended unanimously by a broadly based community representative consultative committee. Because of the limited time that honourable senators are allowed to speak at the first reading stages of Bills, I feel it is important that the third and most important instance of this foot-in-mouth disease from which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in Western Australia suffers is taken from the West Australian of 23 September. The headline to that article stated: 'Women's group bunch of hobos, says Hassell'. I will quote some of the things that he said because it is important to recognise the type of slurring campaign that is going on. The article states: The deputy leader of the Opposition, Mr Hassell, last night described the newly appointed Women's Advisory Council as a 'bunch of hobos'. 'You've left out the decent women who represent the views of the community,' he told the Premier, Mr Burke, in the Legislative Assembly. He continued: 'Why were five members of the Women's Electoral Lobby, a small, left-wing radical group, selected while other bigger, responsible women's organisations were given no representation?' . . . 'Has the selection of membership studiously avoided women who are married with families?' Presumably Mr Hassell believes that the majority of those women who have been appointed to the Western Australian Women's Advisory Council are, as he termed it, members of that left wing radical organisation, the Women's Electoral Lobby, which, I point out, was the very first organisation in this country to endeavour to educate women who had no political education at all on how they were being affected by politics. I could take the time to read out the organisations and individuals who made submissions, but because time is limited I will not. I want to go through some of the qualifications of the women on the Council. Firstly, the president of the Western Australian Women's Advisory Council is Dot Goodrick. She is a community planner and works in the planning and research branch of the Department of Community Welfare. She has a background as a social worker, a welfare officer, an international exchange nurse, a theatre sister and a district nurse in London which makes her well-placed to pursue issues of particular interest or expertise such as self-sufficiency for women. This is one woman who was referred to as a hobo by Mr Hassell. Her educational qualifications include a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Western Australia in anthropology, psychology, politics and economic history and a Masters degree in social work also from the University of Western Australia. Dot is a member of the Western Australian Institute of Technology Social Work Advisory Committee, the WAIT Social Science Advisory Committee, an executive committee member of the Citizens' Advice Bureau and is on the executive committee of the Western Australian Council of Social Service and is its first Vice-President. Since 1977 Dot has been a consultant to the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. In that capacity she has visited many countries and taken particular interest in women and development programs in Asia. She won a Churchill Fellowship last year and studied self-help and self-sufficiency for single parents in the United States of America, Britain and Sweden. For six years she served on a Federal Government committee called the Women's Welfare Issues Consultative Committee. She is also a member of the Western Institute of Self-Help and is a member of the United Nations Association of Australia, Western Australia, and convenes that committee on the Status of Women . In this capacity she chaired the International Women's Year State committee and was the Western Australian representative on the national committee. Dot also has been a member of the Australian Federation of University Women for some years. She is one of the women referred to by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in Western Australia as a hobo. Helen Cattalini is a senior social worker with the Italo-Australian Welfare Centre. Helen was born in Fremantle of Italian parents and speaks Italian. From 1971 to 1979 she was the senior social worker at the City of Fremantle. She has a degree in social welfare from WAIT and 12 years' experience in the welfare field. She has served on the executive committee of the Western Australian Council of Social Service and has been President of the Ethnic Community Council of Western Australia. She also has membership of the Western Australian Consultative Committee of Social Welfare, the Fremantle Hospital Board and the Community Employment Program Allocation Committee. Helen was particularly involved in Fremantle in setting up the women's refuge and child care centres. She also set up a neighbourhood centre in South Fremantle which is a very low socio-economic area. The area has a high migrant population. Helen was inaugural president of the Fremantle Migrant Resource Centre. She is another woman who was referred to as a hobo by Mr Hassell. Kath French is another woman member of this group. I am sure that there are not too many women members of this Parliament and probably not too many male members of the Parliament who are not aware of the activities of Kath French over the years. Senator Walsh —She's a member of the Liberal Party. Senator COLEMAN —She is a member of the Liberal Party, indeed. I am grateful to the Minister for reminding me of it. Kath has tremendous qualifications for the job as adviser to the Western Australian Government on the Western Australian Women's Advisory Council. She is a full time wife and mother of five. She has a particular concern for women's interests and motherhood. She served on the National Women's Advisory Council for two years and has been a volunteer organiser for community welfare associations. Kath is vice-president and board member of the YWCA of Perth, and organiser and foundation member of the Ryder Cheshire Foundation, a foundation member of the 3LS Club, a speakers club for women, and in 1979 was a member of the Mid-Decade for Women Committee in Western Australia. Kath has been a member of the Arthritis and Rheumatism Foundation and for more than 20 years has been an organiser with the Royal Flying Doctor Service Women's Auxiliary. I could go through all members but I recognise that my time will not permit that. I will briefly mention them by name and occupation. Daphne Baldwin is a Wyndham East Kimberley Shire councillor, justice of the peace and librarian aide . Betty Connell is a Roebourne Shire Councillor and justice of the peace. Helen Errington is a part time worker with Disabled Advocates and Self-Help. Helen happens to be disabled. It was heartening to me as a woman who does not suffer from a physical disability to attend Government House at the announcement of the appointment of these people to the Women's Advisory Council and to see Helen there in her wheelchair. I recognised that she has specific expertise that she can bring to any government, either through a committee or directly to a Minister in the needs of the disabled. She is also a secretary of DASH, the Disabled Advocates and Self-Help organisation. Queenie Fogarty is a retired school teacher and school counsellor. Her current occupation is home duties. Rosemary Hannon is a teacher in charge at St Mary's Junior Primary School, South Bunbury. Anne-Marie Heine is a teacher and senior vice-president of the Teachers Union. Pauline Hutchinson is the acting Superintendent of Education, Equal Opportunity. Gillian Kaub is a union organiser with the Western Australian Shop Assistants Union. There are also Dr Gwen Leavesley, Medical Director of the Family Planning Association of Western Australia; Ruth Moira from Borden; Liza Newby, a senior tutor in the Law School at the University of Western Australia; Janet Pine, a research assistant and justice of the peace; and Pat Ryan, retired honorary treasurer of the Christian Television Association. This is a woman who, as I said, was referred to by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in Western Australia as a hobo. Other members are Roslyn Shea, a teacher and relieving deputy principal of the White Gum Valley Special School; Diana Warnock, radio producer and announcer, film critic for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and aerobic fitness instructor; Joan Winch, the co-ordinator, health education, Aboriginal Medical Service of Western Australia Inc.; and last, but by no means least, Judith Siddins, a final year apprentice fitter and first class machinist. Mr Deputy President, I am sure you will recognise that in our changing society at long last women are entering fields that have never been open to them before, and Judith is one of those women. Judith is a very young person. She has a particular interest in women in blue collar employment and with special emphasis on the problems of women in non-traditional work areas. Her other interests include technological change and occupational health and safety, especially as they relate to women. She has worked mostly in blue collar work and for almost four years has been an apprentice in what has been traditionally a male trade. She has a certificate of trade studies for fitting and first class machining. She has a deep concern and experience of the problems women face who are already in the work force. As I said, Mr Deputy President, I am deeply concerned that women of this calibre, women from every walk of life in the State of Western Australia, who have been gathered together to compose the greatest possible Advisory Council that has ever been available to any State or Federal government at any time, should be referred to in the manner that they have by Mr Hassell, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in Western Australia. I believe it is important that these women be promoted in the jobs that they are doing and that the work they do in turn is promoted, particularly by other women who happen to be members of parliament. I am conscious that my speaking time is about to expire. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard the book entitled The Western Australian Women's Advisory Council 1983 and the newspaper articles from which I quoted. Leave granted. The documents read as follows- THE WESTERN AUSTRALIAN WOMEN'S ADVISORY COUNCIL 1983 The establishment of the Advisory Council, and the decision to set up a women's unit and appoint a senior advisor on women's interests within the Department of Premier and Cabinet is the beginning of efforts to redress years of neglect in this area. The needs of women are inadequately understood because most of the decision makers today are usually male. Too little attention has been given to policy on the subject of women's interest. The Labor Party promised action in this area and today's announcement shows we are acting positively so that women no longer will be grossly unrepresented at every senior level of the community, including government, business and the professions. Prior to the 1983 State election the Labor Party endorsed many women for seats in the W.A. Parliament. The ballot box showed our decision was timely and correct by the fact that so many men and women elected them to Parliament. The Government believes the new Western Australian Women's Advisory Council will make a major contribution to enhancing the status of women in the community and build on the hard-won achievements made by the women's movements in years gone by. BRIAN BURKE Premier and Cabinet, Treasurer, Minister Co-ordinating Economic and Social Development and Minister for Forests, Tourism, and Women's Interests. WOMEN'S ADVISORY COUNCIL The Western Australian Government believes that to be consulted about decisions affecting one's life is a basic right in any democracy. In Western Australia, for historical and other reasons, women have not been well represented in the decision-making machinery of the State. In law, education, medicine, sport, business and commerce, and in politics, women have been noticeably under- represented. The community has not fully availed itself of the talents and skills that half of its population has to offer. It is for these reasons that the Western Australian Women's Advisory Council has been established. A public meeting held in Perth in April of this year to discuss the formation of a Women's Advisory Council was attended by more than 150 representatives from Women's organisations. This meeting gave strong support to the proposal to establish a Women's Advisory Council. Following the meeting written submissions were received from 60 groups and individuals. These submissions overwhelmingly endorsed the establishment of a council. The Government has now sought to draw together women with a wide range of expertise and experience, representing different interests and from different backgrounds, to articulate the views of West Australian women. This Women's Advisory Council will serve as a consultative body for the Government. It will offer its opinion and advice on proposed legislation and other Government initiatives as well as drawing the Government's attention to areas where legislation is needed. The Council will make itself available to community groups and individuals throughout Western Australia. It will listen to the views of women from all walks of life and will take these views into account in its deliberations. It will be able to investigate problems that it considers require attention and will recommend action to the Government. The Western Australian Women's Advisory Council will offer advice to the Premier in his role as Minister for Women's Interests. It will promote equality of opportunity for women throughout Western Australia. The Council will hold seminars, produce newsletters, visit regional centres and use all means that it considers appropriate to meet and exchange ideas and information with women. The Government believes that the appointment of a Women's Advisory Council is a significant event in the history of Western Australia. The Government is pleased that the group of very competent and experienced women who are the inaugural Council members have accepted positions on the Council. The Government looks forward to working with the Council and wishes it every success in its endeavours. To assist people throughout Western Australia to have an input into matters affecting women, the Government has compiled this booklet as a public service. The members of the Women's Advisory Council welcome your input. SUBMISSIONS This publication is aimed at assisting women, and others, throughout Western Australia to have a direct input into the Portfolio of Women's Interests. An advertisement was placed in the newspaper and submissions were received from the following groups and individuals: The Uniting Church Fellowship; Institute of Professional Secretaries; Liberal Party of Australia; The Mothers Union; Women's Health Care House; United Nations Association of Australia; Academic Staff Association Western Australian College of Advanced Education; Australian Institute of Management Western Australia Division; Tom Stephens M.L.C.; S. Barnes; Women in the Media; The Family Planning Association of Western Australia; The Girl Guides Association of Western Australia; Dr Judyth Watson; Campaign Against Moral Persecution; The West Australian Shop Assistants and Warehouse Employees; The National Council of Women of Western Australia; West Australian Federation of Rural Youth; Ocean Ridge Women's Community Group; Soroptimist International of Canning Districts; Disabled Advocate and Self Help; Pan-Pacific and South East Asia Women's Association; Women in Search; National Women's Advisory Council; Y.W.C.A. of Western Australia; Soroptimist International of Joondalup; Hellenic Community Women's Auxilliary; International Toastmistress Clubs; Maori Women's Welfare League; Rural Women's Association; Neighbourhood House; Young Women's Christian Association; Royal Australian Nursing Federation; Australian Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs; Soroptimist International of Western Australia; Women's Action Alliance of Western Australia; Fremantle One-Parent Centre; The Salvation Army; Equal Opportunities Resource Centre; Pam Buchanan, M .L.A.; Queenie Fogarty; Janet Pine; Women's Electoral Lobby-Perth; The Country Women's Association of Western Australia; Kath French; Equal Opportunity Education Department of Western Australia; The Women Lawyer's Association of Western Australia (Inc.); Australian Federation of University Women; Megan Sassi ; Kalamunda Community Learning Centre; Women's Service Guides of Western Australia; Pauline Silver; National Women's Advisory Council; State School Teachers Union of Western Australia (Inc.); Sexual Assault Referral Centre Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital; Lyla Elliott, M.L.C.; Pauline Hutchinson; Patricia Giles. DOROTHY (DOT) EVA GOODRICK President of the Western Australian Women's Advisory Council. Community planner in the planning and research branch of the Department of Community Welfare. Dot's background as a social worker, welfare officer, international exchange nurse, theatre sister, and district nurse in London makes her well-placed to pursue issues of particular interest or expertise such as self-sufficiency for women, equal opportunity and affirmative action on anti-discrimination, women's studies generally and the development of women overall. Her educational qualifications include a B.A., (University of W.A.) in anthropology (psychology, politics, economic history), and a Master's degree in Social Work, University of W.A. Dot was an inaugural member of the Women's Electoral Lobby. Dot is a member of the WAIT Social Work Advisory Committee, the WAIT Social Science Advisory Committee, is an executive committee member of the Citizen's Advice Bureau and is on the executive committee of the Western Australian Council of Social Services, and is the first vice-President. Since 1977, Dot has been a consultant to the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. In that capacity she has visited many countries and taken particular interest in women and development programmes in Asia. She won a Churchill Fellowship last year and studied self help and self sufficiency for single parents in the USA, Britain and Sweden. For six years she served on a Federal Government committee called the Women's Welfare Issues Consultative Committee. She also is a member of the Western Institute of Self Help and is a member of the United Nations Association of Australia (WA) and convenes their committee on the Status of Women. In this capacity she chaired the International Women's Year State committee and was the WA representative on the national committee. Dot also has been a member of the Australian Federation of University Women for some years. DAPHNE BALDWIN Wyndham East Kimberley Shire Councillor, Justice of the Peace and librarian aid. Daphne Baldwin has a deep interest in all activities concerning young people and describes herself as an ordinary, interested member of the general community . She lives in Wyndham and her background includes work as a waitress, shop assistant, and hotel manageress where she had responsibility for cooking, bar work, and being housemaid and laundress. Daphne has worked at the Wyndham District High School for six years which has nurtured her association with the young people of the town. She has been a J.P. since July 1982 and has served as a Shire Councillor for eight years. For nine years she represented the Kimberley as a delegate to the Western Australian Council of State Schools organisation. She has been active in parents and citizens committees having held several executive positions and also has supported the country Women's Association. She has involved herself on the Picture Gardens Committee in the North and the Top of the West Festival Committee. HELEN CATTALINI Senior Social Worker, Italo-Australian Welfare Centre. Helen was born in Fremantle of Italian parents and speaks Italian. From 1971 to 1979 she was the senior social worker at the City of Fremantle where she earned great respect for her total involvement. Great progress was made in the area under her jurisdiction. Helen has a particular interest and expertise in migrant welfare with a special concern for women. She has a degree in Social Welfare from WAIT and 12 years' experience in the welfare field. She has served on the Executive Committee of the WA Council of Social Services and has been President of the Ethnic Community Council of WA. She also has membership of the WA Consultative Committee of Social Welfare, the Fremantle Hospital Board and the Community Employment Programme Allocation Committee. Helen was particularly involved in Fremantle in setting up the Women's refuge and Child care centres. She also set up a neighbourhood centre in South Fremantle in a area of high migrant population. Helen was inaugural president of the Fremantle Migrant Resources Centre, which aims particularly at small and newly arrived ethnic groups who have not yet established their own structures. Her hobbies include motor bike riding, fishing, skate-board riding and shell collecting. BETTY CONNELL Roebourne Shire Councillor and Justice of the Peace. Betty lives in Wickham in the north of Western Australia. She has six years' experience with the Department of Community Welfare as a Family Support Worker mainly with the Roebourne Aboriginal community. Betty has a particular interest in the quality of life for all individuals, particularly in the Pilbara where has lived for the past nine years. She was named Lions Club Citizen of the year for 1982/83. She also has been named Apex- Westpac Citizen of the Year for 1983. Her particular interests include tourism, education, litter control and all facets of local government. She has served for four years as Shire councillor including the chairmanship of shire committees as president of the Pilbara Regional Travel Association and the Karratha College Council. Betty is a member of many organisations including the Wickham Community Association, presidency of the Wickham Red Cross (7 years), a member of the Wickham Parents and Citizens, and education committees-she has 19 years experience on education committees-and is involved in the Chamber of Commerce. Other interests include the Country Shires' representative, the Wickham Day Care Committee, and shire representative on the Roebourne Tourist Bureau. Betty has also served as chairman of the Pilbara Stand at the Perth Royal Show. HELEN ERRINGTON Part-time worker with Disabled Advocates and Self-Help. Helen Patricia Errington has a particular interest and expertise in the area of the social problems of the disabled, particularly women. Having been disabled herself since 1954, she has personal experience in this area, and has presented a lecture at WAIT on the disabled. Helen's education qualifications include a Bachelor of Social Work degree, and a diploma in fine arts. She also holds a certificate in typing and bookkeeping. She is a member of the Australian Labor Party, Secretary of D.A.S.H., and a member of the International Federation of Animal Welfare. She also is a member of the Gosnells Repertory Company. Helen is interested in personal development programmes, having participated herself in assertiveness training groups run by the Community Services Training College. Her background is coupled with a keen sense of humour and her pleasant personality gives her a unique opportunity of promoting a positive image of disabled people. QUEENIE FOGARTY Retired schoolteacher and school counsellor. Current occupation-home duties. (Queenie) Fogarty adds a wealth of experience to the committee. Her educational qualifications include B.Sc., Teacher's Higher Certificate, Diploma of Education (University of W.A.), and a Diploma of Psychological Counselling at W.A.I.T. Her particular interests include equal opportunity and anti-discrimination, more relevant education for girls and retraining for women, and a reduction in all forms of violence in the community. Queenie Fogarty has been a member of the Women's Electoral Lobby since its inception, having been convenor, secretary and a member of the educational committee. She also has been on the managing committee of the Equal Opportunity Resource Centre since its inception and was active on previous committees seeking funds for the E.O.R.C. being set up. Other positions include the Status of Women Committee of the Western Australian Teachers' Union from 1975-81, a volunteer teacher and advisory psychologist to the Special Learning Difficulties Association, a member of the Australian Women' s Education Coalition since 1979 (Treasurer in 1982) and a member of the Australian Psychological Society. Queenie Fogarty has an outstanding sporting background which includes membership of the State and Australian hockey teams, a member of the State badminton team, and active involvement in the Mt. Lawley golf club and the bowls section of the Scarborough Sportsmen's Club. KATH FRENCH Housewife and unpaid community worker. Kath French is a full-time wife and mother of five children. She has a particular concern for women's interests, and motherhood. For two years she served on the National Women's Advisory Council and has been a volunteer organiser for community welfare associations. Kath is vice president and board member of the YWCA of Perth; and organiser and foundation member of the Ryder Cheshire Foundation (W.A.), a foundation member of the 3 L.S. Club, a speaker's club for women, and in 1979 was a member of the Mid-Decade for Women Committee in Western Australia. Kath has been a member of the Arthritis and Rheumatism Foundation and for more than 20 years has been an organiser with the Royal Flying Doctor Service Women's Auxiliary. Her other pursuits include being a YWCA delegate to the National Council of Women and a member of the Social Responsibility Committee of the YWCA. She has been a member of the State Council for Girl Guides of Western Australia and a member of the State Executive of the Girl Guides Association, W.A. She also has given her services to be keynote speaker to senior school students on social and community attitudes. ROSEMARY HANNON Teacher in Charge, St. Mary's Junior Primary School, South Bunbury. Rosemary has been teaching full-time for 20 years both in Western Australia and the United Kingdom in both State education and Catholic education. She is married and has raised five children. She is currently working on a Bachelor of Education degree to aid her particular interests in educational areas, specifically with primary schools. Other areas of interest and expertise include staff administration, and advisory work for teachers and parents groups. She has attended courses interstate, particularly in language arts. She is an administrative committee member of the Bunbury Resource Centre and a committee member of the Schools Commission, Professional Development Fund, South West region. She is a member of the Parents and Friends Association and takes a close interest in the Australian Reading Association. Rosemary has held her current position for the past six years. Her specialist area is the junior primary child and she has submitted a paper to the Beazley Inquiry on the subject of varying the intake age of children. Both her husband and Rosemary consequently moved to Bunbury because they say it is an excellent area for family life and has great potential. She lives on a small farm in Burekup. ANNE-MARIE HEINE Teacher; Senior Vice President of Teachers' Union. Anne-Marie brings to the Women's Advisory Committee a wealth of experience in education, industrial relations, and women at work. A recent appointment to the Committee of Inquiry into Education (W.A.), commonly known as the Beazley Committee, Anne-Marie also has membership on the A .B.C. Education Advisory Committee, the Australian Women's Education Coalition, the Australian Labor Party, the Women's Committee of the Australian Teachers' Federation and the Australian Council of Trade Union's Education Committee. Anne-Marie is the first female to hold the position of Junior Vice President of the Trades and Labor Council, and is a convenor of the Women's Committees of the Teachers' Union in the Trades and Labor Council. See also is convenor of the A.L .P.'s Education Committee. Her experience includes teaching, union business, parents and citizens organisations, junior sport and politics. From an education viewpoint, Anne-Marie is concerned about the disadvantages suffered by women and girls, both as recipients of education as a service and as workers in the education field. She also supports a more democratic approach to decision making in education by getting away from the current hierachy syndrome. PAULINE HUTCHINSON Acting Superintendent of Education. (Equal Opportunity). An ex officio member, Pauline is interested in the education of women and girls , social change and its effect on work and family life. She has raised one daughter and fostered two girls and one boy for some years which nurtures her particular interests and expertise. Her education qualifications include a BA (Soc. Sci.) WAIT, Graduate Diploma in Business and Administration WAIT), Teachers Certificate and a Teachers Higher Certificate. Her other qualifications include membership of the Australian College of Education and a Fellow of the W.A. Institute of Educational Administration. She has worked as a Teachers' Aide on a Reserve Kindergarten. She also has held classes for adult Aboriginal women. Pauline has been a primary teacher for 13 years, secondary teacher for a year, and primary deputy principal for six years. She lists as previous occupations the title mother and homemaker. Pauline is extremely active as a member of a variety of organisations including the Australian College of Education, the W.A. Institute of Education Administration (Secretary), the Equal Opportunity Resource Centre, the Career Education Association of W.A. and the Australian Womens' Education Coalition and the Business and Professional Women Organisation. She is Chairperson of the Equal Opportunity and also chairperson of the Research and Advisory Committee on Equal Opportunity. Her other memberships include being a delegate of the National Council of Women , a member of the Perth Naturalists Club and membership of the Choral History Association of W.A., the National Trust and the Teachers' Union. She also is a Sunday School teacher at the First Church of Christ Scientist, Perth. GILLIAN KAUB Union organiser, W.A. Shop Assistants' Union. Gillian has particular interests and expertise in the role of women in the workforce and in trade unions. She also is interested in the position of young people in the community. She has many years experience working in the retail industry, three years as a union organiser and has been involved in various community committees such as cubs, scouts and parents and citizens organisations . Gillian was born in Leura in New South Wales in April 1941, and has passed the NSW Leaving Certificate. She lives in Mundaring and has raised a family of four sons. Gillian also has done part-time lecturing at schools and technical colleges and is involved with a number of organisations-a delegate to the National Council of the WA Shop Assistants' Union, a WA delegate to that union's national women's committee, a delegate to the Trades and Labor Council and that organisation's women's committee. She also is a past president of the Labor Women's Organisation and past president and treasurer of the Mundaring branch of the ALP . Gillian's other activities include her position as delegate to the ALP State Executive, vice president of the Swan Community Youth Support Scheme and member of the executive committee of the WA Careers Education Advisory Committee and a member of the United Nations Association of Australia (WA). Gillian has lived in the Pilbara town of Newman for six and a half years and is aware of the problems facing women living in isolated areas. DR. GWEN LEAVESLEY Medical Director of the Family Planning Association of W.A. Dr. Leavesley has particular interest and expertise in reproductive health care , women's health and human sexuality. She has been with the Family Planning Association (WA) for 11 years where she developed training programmes for health professionals and the general public in sexuality, and fertility regulation. Dr. Leavesley has an imposing background which includes educational qualifications M.B., Ch.B (Hon. 1st Class) University of Liverpool and previous occupations embracing part-time General Practitioner, part-time research in the Department of Surgery (UWA) and part-time Research in the Department of Haemotology at Royal Perth Hospital. She was the first medical director of the Family Planning Association (W.A.) and has guided development of clinical service and medical training for the association since 1972. She was a member of the Australian Federation of Family Planning Association's Medical Task Force 1981 and a member of the W.A. Institute of Technology Council . Her community committee service embraces almost 20 years' involvement with sporting organisations, medical committees and educational pursuits. She is currently treasurer of the Australian Association of Sex Educators, Researchers and Therapists (WA), a member of the American Society of Sex Educators, Counsellors and Therapists; a member of Gestalt & Transactional analysis society of W.A.; Australian Society of Psychosomatic Obstetricians and Gynaecologists; Royal Kings Park Tennis Club; and Women's Electoral Lobby. RUTH MOIR Ruth lives and works at 'Chillinup', Borden. She was born in Moora and was educated to sub-leaving standard. From 1949 until 1955 she was a State registered nurse and in 1972-73 she did a refresher course. Ruth is a member of the Melanian (black and coloured sheep) Society of W.A. She also is interested in the Mastectomy Rehabilitation Service. Golf and football clubs occupy most of her leisure time. She has been president , secretary and a committee member of the Boxwood Hill Golf Club and has been president and a committee member of the Boxwood Hill Football Club Ladies' Auxiliary. Her other pursuits include the Albany Weavers' Guild and the Wellstead Book Club. In whatever spare time Ruth manages she pursues her interests in craft work such as weaving and spinning. She also is interested in the native plants of Western Australia. Ruth also attends workshops and summer schools to improve her knowledge in these areas. LIZA NEWBY Senior Tutor, Law School, University of Western Australia. Liza Newby has a particular interest and expertise in women and the law (women in the criminal justice system; women in the legal profession; sexual assault law), and indigenous minorities and the law (Aborigines and Canadian Indians; criminal justice policy, legal services, Aborigines in the criminal justice system). Liza's education qualifications include Master of Arts (Criminology), University of Sheffield, U.K., 1976, and Bachelor of Laws from UWA in 1973. Since 1977 until today Liza has been involved in academic research specifically on reform of the rape law. Other areas of research include Federal criminal justice policy for Aborigines/ Indians in Australia and Canada; legal professional careers and the role of women, and Aborigines in summary criminal courts in WA. In 1981, as a consultant in the Solicitor-General's Department in Canada, she was involved in a review of Federal penal policy towards Canadian native people. Her background includes work as a Research and Training Officer in the WA Prisons Department; Tutor in Criminal Law at the UWA Law School; Visiting professor, College of Law, Arizona State University; Visiting Lecturer, Law School, University of Southampton; and Visiting Fellow, Centre of Criminology, University of Toronto, Canada. Liza has established and helped run pre-school play groups for 2-4 year olds, been a member of the Women's Services Guild and was briefly a Vice President in WA of the Australian Federation of University Women. She has held membership of the Women Lawyers' Association, the WA Law Society, the United Nations Mid- Decade Conference on the Status of Women, the Advisory Committee on Child Abuse and Criminal Lawyers' Association. JANET PINE Research Assistant and Justice of the Peace. Janet, who was born in Collie, holds union membership with the ACOA. Janet has a Bachelor of Arts degree, of (UWA) 1980, and works for Senator Pat Giles. Janet is particularly interested in the provision of child care services, single parents, welfare services, education, women's issues and environmental issues. Janet's experience includes single parenthood involving responsibility for three children. She was a mature-age student and has knowledge of the education systems in New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia. She was Secretary of the Australian Labor Women's organisation in WA in 1979 and President in 1981. She joined the Women's Electoral Lobby in Sydney in 1972 and was a convenor in WA in 1982. Janet is Secretary of the Equal Opportunity Resource Centre. Janet is a council member of the Family Planning Association (WA) and is involved with the national Association of Community-based Child Care Centres, the Australian Women's Education Coalition, WACOSS and Community Aid Abroad. Janet is involved in environmental matters with membership of several organisations. Her three young children are now of an age which enables her to participate more fully in community and public life. She values highly the skills she learned during the rearing of her children and believes that women should be accorded recognition and support for the role they play in bearing and nurturing children. She lists her qualifications as secretarial, housewife and mother ( administration). PAT RYAN Retired Hon. Treasurer, Christian Television Association. Pat Ryan has a particular interest in Christian affairs. She is currently the vice chairman of the Catholic Diocesan Pastoral Council. During WAY 1979 she was executive officer for the Combined Churches contribution to the sesquicentenary celebrations. As a Christian, Pat has taken a particular interest in the growing world ecumenical movement. Prior to her retirement, Pat held a variety of positions which included being secretary to Kim Beazley senior, secretary to the general manager of Westralian Farmers Co-operative, and public relations officer for the Westralian Farmers group of companies. For five years she was Honorary Consul for France. Pat's career has been a varied one which has seen her spend time overseas in London where she did social work, mainly amongst prostitutes. When she returned to WA, for six years she visited mental institutions, in groups, on a weekly basis to talk to inmates and to take them on picnics. In her role of public relations at Wesfarmers she worked in the country and has a sound knowledge of life there. Pat also is a member of the Chidley Point Golf Club. ROSLYN SHEA Teacher and Relieving Deputy Principal of the Whitegum Valley Special School. Roslyn Shea has been involved in community events for many years and has a particular interest in Aborigines and special education, plus issues relating to the elderly. She has a Diploma of Teaching and for five years taught at the Roebourne primary school with special emphasis on Aboriginal language classes. For six years she has taught at the Whitegum Valley school for intellectually handicapped children illustrating her compassionate approach to those subjects. Roslyn has been a delegate to the State Executive of the ALP for six years, is a member of the W.A. Peace Committee, the Campaign Against Nuclear Energy and is also a member of the Teachers' Union. Her experience in living and working in the north of WA and helping those less fortunate than others adds a depth of experience to the committee. Roslyn also has a keen interest in local government affairs and has been active in many moves to better the living standards and conditions of people in Fremantle where she lives. She is a conscientious and hard working individual and has a direct, down-to- earth approach to complex matters that will aid any deliberations of the committee. JUDITH SIDDINS Final year apprentice fitter and first class machinist. Judith has a particular interest in women in blue collar employment with special emphasis on the problems of women in non-traditional work. Her other interests include technological change and occupational health and safety, especially related to women. She has worked mostly in blue collar work and for almost four years has been an apprentice in a ''male'' trade. She has a Certificate of Trade Studies for Fitting and First Class Machining. She was involved in the Campaign to Save Jobs during the 1982 lay-offs at Chamberlain John Deere. She has a deep concern, and experience, with the problems women face who are already in the workforce. She often gives talks to high school classes encouraging young women to broaden their work horizons and look at less traditional work options. She is a delegate to the State Executive of the ALP and active member of the AWMSU, a committee member of the Fluid Power Society of Australia (WA) and a women's committee member of the TLC. DIANA WARNOCK Radio producer and announcer; film critic for the Australian Broadcasting Commission; Aerobic Fitness instructor. Diana Warnock is well known for her duties as a producer and on-air personality at Radio Station 6PR. She has a particular interest in films, women's issues, literature, fitness, jazz and the media. From 1961 to 1973 Diana worked as a journalist at West Australian Newspapers. She was a tutor in women's studies at Murdoch University from 1978 to 1982 and worked in the Department of Politics at the University of Western Australia as a research assistant in 1967-68. For some years she has been on the Festival of Perth Film Committee and has built up a name as a film critic for The West Australian, the Weekend News and the ABC. Between 1975 and 1977, Diana worked as volunteer in two women's refuges, Nardine, and the Mary Smith Shelter. Diana has a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Western Australia and has an impressive list of memberships to a variety of community organisations. These include representation on the Festival of Perth Programme Advisory Board, the Family Planning Association as a vice president; the Australian Journalists' Association; the Indian Ocean Festival Association; Past Convenor on the Women's Electoral Lobby; membership of Australian Women Against Rape; the Humanist Society; the Perth Jazz Society and the Abortion Law Repeal Association, and the Australian Federation of University Women. JOAN WINCH Co-ordinator, Health Education, Aboriginal Medical Services. Joan Winch has a particular interest and expertise in the question of Aboriginal health. Herself an Aboriginal she is a State registered nurse, State certificated midwife and a child health nurse. Joan has a Diploma of Applied Science achieved at WAIT in 1977. She is an associate member of the Royal College of Nurses (Australia) and has been Secretary for the Southern Suburbs Aboriginal Progress Association. In 1976, Joan went on a study tour of India looking at health care in relation to Aboriginal health problems. In 1978 she went on a study tour of China studying possible schemes to be implemented in Australia. She is associated with the implementation of a newly formed health education programme for Aboriginal workers. Joan, in previous years, has involved herself in community nursing. MEMBERS OF STATE PARLIAMENT The number of women members of State Parliament indicate the progress made in the recognition of the status of women. Mr Bob Hetherington, MLC, has been a member of the State Parliamentary Labor Party Caucus Committee on women's interests since 1978. ''For every man who put one stone upon another in building the foundations of the colony, there was a woman to put the mortar between the stones to keep them together.'' WOMEN'S GROUP BUNCH OF HOBOS, SAYS HASSELL The deputy leader of the Opposition, Mr Hassell, last night described the newly appointed Women's Advisory Council as ''a bunch of hobos.'' ''You've left out the decent women who represent the views of the community,'' he told the Premier, Mr Burke, in the Legislative Assembly. Mr Hassell's comments came while Mr Burke was answering a question about the composition of the women's council. Liberal MLA Peter Coyne (Murchison-Eyre) asked Mr Burke who had selected the 20 members. ''Why were five members of the Women's Electoral Lobby, a small, left-wing radical group, selected while other bigger, responsible women's organisations were given no representation?'' Mr Coyne asked. ''Has the selection of membership studiously avoided women who are married with families?'' Mr Burke said that the question reflected ''the paranoia of the Opposition.'' ''In nine years of government you did nothing about treating half the population fairly.'' he said. ''We are now attempting to redress that wrong.'' He said that the Government had considered submissions and names put forward by interested groups and individuals. The members had been selected on the basis of their expertise and qualifications and what they had to contribute, not according to whether they were already part of existing women's organisations, Mr Burke said. GAY GRANT AN INSULT-HASSELL By John Arthur The State Government was accused today of an ''insulting and contemptible slur' ' on the community by giving money to the homosexual movement. The deputy leader of the Opposition, Mr Bill Hassell, said he believed the Government soon would announce a grant of $30,820 to the Homosexual Counselling and Information Service for a community education programme. ''I am absolutely amazed,'' he said ''I just can't believe it. ''The Government is taking money saved from the federal wage pause to promote homosexuality, which is an illegal activity in this State. ''The money is supposed to employ two education officers, but I think this is a contemptible slur on the community because the money should be directed to furthering the long-term, secure employment prospects of unemployed people, particularly the disadvantaged. ''Nobody in their right mind could regard this project with any level of priority in an economy as devastated as ours-and the best they can come up with is to spend money for homosexual counselling. ''My God what are they advocating? The spreading of AIDS?'' Mr Hassell said he had obtained a 22-page list of job projects to be funded from the federal wage pause. He took exception to grants to the Trades and Labor Council ($10,465) to employ a library research assistant, TLC JOB COST ANGERS HASSELL The Opposition has accused the Government of spending taxpayers' money to employ staff for the Trades and Labor Council. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Mr Hassell, said yesterday that the Government had allocated $10,645 to the TLC to employ a library and research assistant. This money had come from wage-pause savings and was supposed to be used on job- creation schemes. The move was a disgraceful addition to the Government's already shameful record of jobs for boys and political patronage. ''It must be remembered that the TLC is comprised of the richest and most powerful unions in WA,'' he said. ''It might be good for the person who gets the job, but nothing alters the fact that the Government should be spending taxpayers' money for the good of the public and not for the benefit of the TLC.'' Allocations Mr Hassell said that there were other blatantly political allocations of job creation funds. But the Minister for Employment, Mr Parker, said that Mr Hassell had made a shameful attempt to undermine public confidence in job creation. Mr Hassell had deliberately not said that the allocation was recommended unanimously by a broadly based community representative consultative committee. Sitting suspended from 1.52 to 2 p.m. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Leader of the Government in the Senate) —I inform the Senate that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) will be absent from this chamber today and tomorrow. Any questions which would normally be directed to him in relation to his portfolio or those which he represents should be directed to the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes). Senator HILL —My question is directed to the Minister for National Resources and Energy. I refer the Minister to his answer to Senator Chaney's question on Tuesday about the market outlook for uranium. Senator Walsh will recall quoting approvingly from remarks which he said had been attributed to Mr Tony Grey of Pancontinental Mining Ltd to the effect that the anticipated demand for uranium in the early 1990s might not now be realised until the end of the century. Has the Minister yet checked the accuracy or otherwise of this alleged statement by Mr Grey in London, as he said he would? If so, does he agree that Mr Grey made no such statement during his address to the annual symposium of the Uranium Institute at the end of August? If the checking process is still incomplete, does the Minister agree that it was irresponsible of him to raise the matter in the way in which he did on Tuesday? Senator WALSH —I asked my staff about three days ago, I think it was, to endeavour to have that report checked out. I presume that, among other things, the Department would have been asked. The checking out process has not been completed. The last part of the question was whether I believe that I acted irresponsibly in mentioning the statement if it had not been checked out. No, I do not believe that I acted irresponsibly because I made it perfectly clear at the time I made that statement that such a remark had been reported and attributed to Mr Grey and that I was in the process of checking it out. That is absolutely correct and there is no irresponsibility about it. I certainly did not assert that Mr Grey had made such a remark. A major reason why I raised the matter is that I would be surprised if Mr Grey did make such a comment. Senator TATE —I direct my question to the Minister for Social Security. Has the Minister seen the headline in today's Daily Mirror which states that pensions and unemployment benefits will be cut as a result of the defeat of the Government's tax Bills? Has the Minister identified the source of this headline? Whether he has or not, is it true that there will be such pension changes in the next 12 months or in the 1984-85 Budget? Senator GRIMES —Yes, the headline in the Daily Mirror has been drawn to my attention. I am very surprised that the headline is there and that in fact the article was produced in that way. Senator Walters —You should not be surprised in view of what Senator Walsh said. Senator GRIMES —I suppose I should quote that famous Tasmanian Australian Democrat member of parliament when I read articles such as that and suggest that I wonder what those turkeys have been smoking when they write them. In fact, the article is what is known as a beat-up. It arises from a reply by my colleague, Senator Walsh, who was asked what alternatives the Government has when its revenue is reduced by $207m-odd by the irresponsible action of Opposition parties. Senator Walsh said: 'Oh, well, we have three options. We can cut our cloth to suit the amount of money we have; we can cut expenditure; or we can increase taxes'. Out of this has arisen the article which suggests that we will cut pensions and benefits. In fact, that article is nonsense. We have no intention of cutting pensions. We have no intention of cutting benefits. In the last Budget we in fact increased both pensions and benefits. We are committed to the indexation of pension and the increase of the standard rate of pensions to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. We have demonstrated, by increasing benefits, by indexing unemployment benefits for single people and increasing them by $4-odd a week earlier in the year, by $2 a week in November and by $2 a week in May, that we will not allow disadvantaged people in this community to suffer in the way that the previous Government made them suffer, first of all, by cutting down indexation in one year to only once a year; secondly, by cutting out since 1978 indexation for single people on unemployment benefits; and, thirdly, by failing to increase the under-18 unemployment benefit from 1975 to 1982. It is not people on this side of the House who will cut pensions and benefits. The record shows in recent years that the only people who will cut pensions and benefits in this country are in fact the members of the Government which was in power from 1975 to 1983, when we had seven dark years of government by a discredited former Prime Minister, a discredited former Treasurer and a series of discredited former Ministers for Social Security. Yes, I have seen the article. No, there is no truth in the article. It is what is known as a beat-up. It is an article aimed at selling newspapers rather than bearing any resemblance to the truth. Senator TATE —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. The Minister has outlined the current policy of the Government in relation to indexation. I was looking for an unusual assurance, to kill this rumour, that in fact no change will be made diminishing unemployment or social security benefits in the 1984-85 Budget. The PRESIDENT —I thought the Minister had answered it. I will allow the supplementary question. Senator GRIMES —Even this far ahead of the 1984-85 Budget, I can give Senator Tate an absolute assurance that none of those benefits will be reduced in that Budget. Senator ARCHER —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy . I refer to the frequent statements of the Government when in opposition that oil prices should be adjusted regularly to conform with the changes in the exchange rate. I ask: Does the Government still support that policy or is it to be another of the many abandoned policies? If the Government still supports the principle, when will the policy be implemented? If implemented on the basis of the current exchange rate, what would be the change in the price of a litre of petrol? Senator WALSH —I am not aware of frequent statements being made over a long period by the Australian Labor Party in opposition along the lines set out by Senator Archer. I do, however, recall very clearly saying myself, and I recall Mr Keating saying, that the import parity price should not have been adjusted upwards on 1 January this year by, I think it was, $3.40 a barrel or something like that, on the ground that that reflected a true import parity price, because , as blind Freddy and his dog knew at the time, the notional import parity price upon which that adjustment was made, which was $34 a barrel ex-Gulf Saudi light crude, was not the price at which oil was being sold in the world. In fact oil was being sold at very much lower prices. That was an assertion which was absolutely proven, of course, within a couple of months when the official Saudi marker price was reduced from $US34 a barrel to $US29 a barrel. As to future import parity pricing adjustments, which was the subject matter of the precise question which Senator Archer asked at the end of his question, I do not know what the exchange rate is today but it is certainly higher than it was at the time the import parity price was last adjusted. That price was operative from 1 April at the exchange rate that prevailed at 14 March, I believe it was. If the present Australia-United States dollar exchange rate were applied and all the other practices of the former Government continued, the administered price of domestically produced oil would come down. Whether six-monthly adjustments will be continued is a matter which the Government will decide. One of the factors influencing that decision, as has always been the case, is the revenue consideration-a consideration that is all the more urgent in the case of this Government because of the desperate financial situation which it inherited from its predecessors. At the time when the statements to which Senator Archer referred were being made the public had been told by the discredited former Treasurer that on a no-policy-change basis the country was facing a prospective deficit of $6 billion in 1983-84. The discredited former Treasurer was advised by the Secretary to the Treasury five days before the election that on a no- policy-change basis the prospective deficit for 1983-84 was in fact $9 1/2 billion. The discredited former Treasurer put to the discredited former Prime Minister whether the public should be made aware of that fact. The Prime Minister said ' No; give them the mushroom treatment. Keep them in the dark. Keep the mugs believing that the real deficit we are facing is $6 billion and not $9 1/2 billion', which was the true figure at that time. Of course, when we came into government we discovered all this. We discovered that we were facing a massively larger deficit than we had expected or that the country had been led by the discredited former Treasurer and the discredited former Prime Minister to expect . Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. It would not be Question Time if I did not draw your attention to standing orders 99 and 100 and to the debating of questions. The Minister consistently continues to debate questions. He was asked a simple question about the policy of adjusting the price of oil in accordance with changes in the exchange rate. We are being treated to a diatribe on general economic policy. I ask you to call the Minister to order. The PRESIDENT —I think the Minister was answering the generality of the question that was asked. I shall allow him to continue. However, I ask him to keep within the framework of the question. Senator WALSH —Certainly, Mr President. I would not agree that I was indulging in a diatribe on economic policy. I was putting on the record some historical facts. All the reasons I have given will have to be taken into consideration by the Government when it makes a decision on the timing and magnitude of future changes in the administered price of domestic crude oil. Senator ARCHER —I ask a supplementary question. In amongst all that, am I to understand that the policy of the Government is that it will be upholding neither the principle nor the practice? Senator WALSH —The answer is no. Senator PRIMMER —Can the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs assure the Senate that a full and proper investigation will be made into allegations that the son of Sir Robert Sparkes, President of the Queensland National Party, was recruited into the Australian diplomatic service earlier this year as a result of Sir Robert's influence with Mr Peter Henderson, Secretary to the Department of Foreign Affairs? Does the Minister agree that this example of coalition harmony in Canberra contrasts sharply with the current conflict on show in the Queensland election campaign? Senator GARETH EVANS —I will refer that question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs for his answer. I note that it is in line with a number of similar issues that have been pursued by the honourable senator in recent years along the lines of the prevalence of nepotism and undue influence alleged to occur within the Department of Foreign Affairs. Full and proper investigations, to use the language of the honourable senator, have been carried out in response to earlier allegations of that kind. No doubt they will be conducted in similar vein in response to this suggestion. Senator CHIPP —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. I hope he is as generous with information in response to my question as he was to Senator Archer. Does the Minister know that discussions between the Australian and South Korean governments concerning uranium shipments have been resumed? Is it a fact that these talks were previously delayed because the Government was unable to brief departmental officers on the policy to be implemented? Is he aware of a lunchtime report, I believe by the Macquarie Broadcasting Network, that the Chairman of Energy Resources of Australia Ltd today told his annual general meeting that there had been encouraging indications of support from the Government towards the uranium industry throughout the policy review? Does this mean that the Government has determined its uranium policy? If not, how can it then be possible that talks at governmental level have now resumed between Australia and South Korea on Australian uranium exports? Senator WALSH —I would like to be as generous with information to Senator Chipp as I was to Senator Archer, but I am unable to be so because, firstly, I did not hear the lunchtime report and, secondly, I did not know that talks had been resumed. I suppose, from my general background knowledge of the subject, that it is possible that talks have been resumed. It has long been a matter of public knowledge that the Minister for Trade, within whose area of responsibility administratively this question falls-I answer this question as Minister representing the Minister for Trade-some months ago, having previously cancelled the negotiating determinations issued to six companies by the previous Government, reissued negotiating determinations to two companies, one of which was Energy Resources of Australia Ltd. Given that general factual background, while I did not know that talks had been resumed it is not surprising or amazing that talks could have been resumed between ERA and South Korea. I do not recall the final part of the question very clearly. Senator Chipp made some reference to whether this means that government policy has been determined, or words to that effect. No, government policy has not been determined. As I stated yesterday, I think, a variety of submissions relating to the uranium question is scheduled for consideration by Cabinet next week and, presumably, for consideration by the Parliamentary Labor Party in the following week. That is a scheduled timetable which neither I nor anybody else can guarantee will actually be met. For example, this week the consideration of the issue was necessarily postponed because of the illness of the Prime Minister. The present proposal by the Government is that it be considered by Cabinet next week and by the Parliamentary Labor Party the following week. Senator CHIPP —I ask a supplementary question. Arising out of the Minister's reference to the timetable, does it not seem rather queer that departmental officers have been given permission to resume talks before government policy has been determined? Senator WALSH —I am sorry; that was the last part of the question which I did not remember clearly. I had intended to say in my initial answer, in any case, that I will refer Senator Chipp's question to the Minister for Trade to see whether he has any additional information to provide. That request, of course, will include the matter which Senator Chipp raised in his supplementary question . Senator COATES —My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate in his current role as Acting Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women. Did the Minister notice petitions from certain women golfers in Tasmania complaining about the Sex Discrimination Bill? Will the Minister explain how the Bill will handicap women golfers? Senator BUTTON —I will seek to explain how the Bill, as I understand it, will not handicap women golfers. Clause 23 of the Bill, which relates to clubs, does not impose any obligation on associate members to become full members. What it does say is that a club which has male full members and female associate members will not be able to refuse an application from a female associate to become a full member because she is female. Likewise, if a male wished to apply for assciate membership, his application could not be refused because he was male. Nothing in clause 23 prevents a mixed club from continuing to have categories of full and associate membership with differential fees and benefits, as long as both categories of membership are open to men and women equally. I apologise for laughing in the course of the answer, Mr President, but the fact is that I was laughing not about the substance of the answer but about the many references in the answer, which I had prepared for me, to handicaps, clubs and full members. The PRESIDENT —I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the Senate Gallery of former Senator Neville Bonner. On behalf of all honourable senators, I extend to him a warm and friendly welcome on his return to Canberra. Honourable senators-Hear, hear! Senator TEAGUE —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy . I refer to the interdepartmental document on uranium requested by the Government and circulated only to the Labor Party Caucus. Why were the resources of the Public Service directed towards serving a purely party political purpose? Why did the Government determine that such information should be the preserve of the Labor Party alone and not made available for study and comment by the whole Parliament and the community? Senator WALSH —To the best of my knowledge, no interdepartmental committee report has been circulated to members of Caucus. Certainly no IDC report has been circulated to members of Caucus by me. I will check with other Ministers, including the Prime Minister, to see whether any other Minister has circulated a copy of that IDC report. Senator CHILDS —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy . It refers to an interview conducted on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio program AM on 18 October, in which Dr John Coulter, senior member of the Australian Conservation Foundation, in discussing the synroc method of storing radioactive waste, stated: Before one puts waste into Synroc, one has to put it through a reprocessing plant . . . this is a necessary precondition for the incorporation of waste into Synroc. Is reprocessing necessary for the incorporation of nuclear waste into synroc? Is it true that plutonium is isolated during this process? Is laser technology available which could be used to convert this plutonium to weapons grade plutonium? Senator WALSH —I am not familiar with the statements by Dr Coulter to which Senator Childs refers. It is obviously a technical question which I do not feel technically qualified or competent to answer. However, I will give some response in very general terms and supply Senator Childs with a more detailed and definitive statement from people who are technically competent to answer such a technical question. Senator Chipp —And all other senators, please. Will you circulate it to the whole Senate? Senator WALSH —All right. I will have it put into Hansard as a supplementary answer, if honourable senators wish. As I understand it, some reprocessing is required for the incorporation of long lived waste into synroc. I do not know whether plutonium is actually isolated by that reprocessing, but I would expect that plutonium would be one of the long lived components which would, in the reprocessing, be taken out with the intention of incorporating it into synroc for long term storage, because it is a long lived radioactive material. I repeat that I will seek from the proper authority-pretty obviously, I suppose, that is the Australian Atomic Energy Commission-a technically qualified answer to Senator Childs's question and have it incorporated in Hansard, as has been done by me in the past, I think, and certainly by other Ministers. Senator PETER BAUME —My question is directed to the Minister for Resources and Energy. It is in three parts. First, does Senator Walsh agree that a major benefit for companies of his proposed resource rent tax is that during economic downturns, or other times during which company profits are falling, the tax collected will fall much more than under the present system? Secondly, does he agree that this would mean that the revenue flows to government from such a tax would be much more uneven than under the present system? Thirdly, how does the Minister envisage that this uneven revenue flow will be dealt with by the States , especially in view of the fact that the time when they will need the revenue most will be the very time when it is likely to drop off most sharply? Senator WALSH —Senator Baume has drawn attention to some quite valid points, in my view. He is, of course, correct in assuming that a resources rent tax or, indeed, any tax related to profits necessarily at a time of industry slump and low profits reduces the revenue payable to governments, as against a tax related to production. That applies whether the government is State or Federal. That can be seen as a problem, although I believe that there are ways of dealing with it and I shall come to them shortly. But it ought to be noted that it is a benefit for the industries concerned that they not be overtaxed in periods of depressed prices and/or depressed sales. Of course, with a tax related to profits, instead of to production, applied to a cyclical industry such as the mining industry, there will be more variations in revenue than there have been in the past. That brings us to Senator Baume's third point-the question of such a tax being applied by the States. However, before dealing with that, let me say, on the basis that it was a Commonwealth tax, that Commonwealth taxation or revenue is subject to wide fluctuations because of general economic conditions. For example , I think that a one per cent increase in gross domestic product, all other things being equal, induces about an extra $400m in Commonwealth personal income tax. It is a figure something like that, anyway. So, within the Commonwealth revenue base there is already the potential for and the actuality of major fluctuations, with which Commonwealth governments cope by varying the size of deficits or surpluses. With the States it is not so simple, because by and large State governments do not have the capacity to run Budget deficits-or certainly not substantial Budget deficits. To that extent, I acknowledge the validity of Senator Baume's question . However, I do not believe that the problem is unsurmountable. If a State government were imposing a profit related tax or a resource rent tax, it could make a fairly reliable estimate of the average sustainable yield from such a tax and, if it chose to do so, it could pay revenue into a trust account in years when the yield from the tax was above normal and withdraw it in years when the revenue was below normal. That is something that State governments could do. As to whether they would actually do it, I think I sense a cynical response from Senator Withers. I find that the cynicism of Senator Withers is often compatible with the real world. What States might be more likely to do is to take all the revenue in the high income years and expect the Commonwealth Government to fill the revenue gaps in the low income years. I suspect that Senator Withers would share my view on that. Senator ELSTOB —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. It refers to the recent warnings by the Secretary-General of the United Nations that new computerised weaponry systems in outer space could eventually escape political control altogether. Can the Minister advise what action Australia will be taking when disarmament issues are raised in the General Assembly of the United Nations? Can we anticipate the Minister for Foreign Affairs making a statement on Australia's role in view of the increasing community concern for international peace and order? Senator GARETH EVANS —I am indebted to the honourable senator for his question without notice, and I will refer it to the Minister for Foreign Affairs for a detailed reply. I simply draw to the honourable senator's attention the fact that we now have an ambassador with particular responsibilities for disarmament in the United Nations, and we would expect, as a result of that, to adopt a very much higher profile, both in policy terms and in the vigour with which we express our point of view, than has been the case in the past. As to the particular matters raised by the Secretary-General with respect to weaponry in outer space and the other matters of detail raised by the honourable senator, I will seek an early reply for him. Senator WALTERS —My question is addressed to Senator Grimes in his capacity as Minister representing Senator Gietzelt who represents the Minister for Transport . Senator Grimes —Say it slowly. Senator WALTERS —Senator Grimes will probably be more au fait with the answer that I am seeking than Senator Gietzelt. Senator Robert Ray —That is a terrible reflection. Senator WALTERS —No, it is-- The PRESIDENT —Order! Will the honourable senator please ask her question? Senator WALTERS —Mr President, those honourable senators who interject will understand when I say-- The PRESIDENT —Order! I ask the honourable senator to ignore interjections. I remind her that this is Question Time. Senator WALTERS —Is the Minister aware that the Tasmanian Government and the Australian National Line agree that there is a need for a second Bass Strait ferry to service Tasmania during the height of the tourist season? Senator Tate —That is not true. Senator WALTERS —The honourable senator should read the Australian Financial Review. Is the Minister further aware that importation of this ferry requires the permission of the Federal Minister for Transport? Is it a fact that the maritime unions will not agree to the importation of the ferry this season because they insist on 100 per cent Australian crewing which, from a time point of view, is now impossible? Finally, will the Government act in Tasmania's interests and allow importation of this second ferry, the charter of which is essential by mid-November? Senator GRIMES —Yes, I am aware that there has been some controversy in Tasmania about the Tasmanian Government's proposal to import a second ferry to carry passengers across Bass Strait in the Christmas season. I certainly do not agree with Senator Walters that the Australian National Line agreed, in the way she says, that it was desirable to import such a ferry in the way the Tasmanian Government wanted to import it. I am also equally aware, as is every other Tasmanian member on both sides of the Senate and in the other place, that what the Tasmanian Government was about, in the lateness of its application and in the delay in replying to the questions put to it by the Federal Minister for Transport, was in fact a political stunt. The proposal put by the Tasmanian Government involved a foreign vessel, crewed by foreign nationals, operating in Australian waters. The Commonwealth and the Federal Minister were ready to give sympathetic consideration to the Tasmanian proposal, subject to the Tasmanian Government being able to give the Federal Transport Minister assurances, as required by the Navigation Act, that the requirements of the Act would be met. It is my understanding that the Tasmanian Minister for Transport has advised the Federal Minister that, because of the limited time available to settle the necessary arrangements, including negotiations with relevant maritime unions, and for the selection of a suitable vessel, the Tasmanian Government will not be pursuing the matter at this time. That was not the decision of the Federal Minister for Transport. That was the decision of the Tasmanian Minister for Transport and the Tasmanian Government. He knew and it knew that they put up this proposal too late. Another question that was raised was a request by the Tasmanian Premier for Commonwealth financial assistance to put this ferry on the run. That needs to be seen in the light of the very generous assistance already given to Tasmania in general funds and also in terms of the subsidy that is already provided for the ferry service across Bass Strait. Senator Tate —More than $3m. Senator GRIMES —It is $3m now. The estimate for the importation of a new ferry was anything from $3m to $10m. In fact, many of us recognise the need for increased capacity for the transport of passengers across Bass Strait. Many of us recognise that this facility should be introduced with co-operation between the Commonwealth Government and the State Governments so that the people of Tasmania get the increased capacity that they need, at a reasonable cost. We have had a request at the last moment for the importation of a ferry to operate for a few months, when it was known quite well that it would be very hard to meet the requirements of the Navigation Act and that there would be difficulties between the ANL, the new carrier and, understandably, the unions. I think it is a pity that a stunt like this is put up without the Tasmanian Government sitting down and having a sensible discussion with the Commonwealth Government about it. I repeat: At no time did Mr Morris, the Federal Minister for Transport, put any objections in the way. He merely said that such a ferry would have to meet the requirements of the Navigation Act and that there were no Federal funds available. That was perfectly reasonable. As soon as he did that, the Tasmanian Government pulled out. Senator Tate —Peter Rae would never ask for that. Senator GRIMES —I make a final response. It is prompted by an interjection from Senator Tate who, along with Senator Rae and me, was a member of the Senate Select Committee on Passenger Fares and Services to and from Tasmania. If Senator Rae were here, one would be interested to hear his response to such a proposal, knowing his views on this subject. Senator WALTERS —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. In view of Senator Grimes's statement that the State Government delayed and had made last minute requests, I ask: Why has the Prime Minister not answered officially the letter sent to him on 5 August, nearly three months ago, by the State Government regarding the second ferry for the Bass Strait crossing? Senator GRIMES —I do not know the exact nature of the letter of 5 August but I would be very surprised if the Prime Minister had not answered that, as he promptly answers all other letters from Mr Gray. All I know is that there was a letter written by the Federal Minister for Transport-I will not necessarily be held to the exact date-on about 14 September asking for details from the Tasmanian Government about its proposal for a second ferry and that letter had not been replied to up to a few days ago. However, I will get the details of that for Senator Walters. Senator GILES —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware that the shire of Wanneroo in Western Australia has recently adopted a motion in favour of having a twin city relationship with Durban in South Africa? What is the attitude of the Australian Government to such ties in the light of the appalling human rights record of South Africa and the disfranchisement of the majority of the population of that country? Senator GARETH EVANS —The short answer is: Not very warm. It is true that the matter of twin city relations is essentially a question for the local government authority involved. But it must be said that the establishment of a close relationship between an Australian city and a South African city is utterly out of keeping with the general tenor of the Australian Government's relations with South Africa which are of a kind that has been described by me in terms that have been less than kind and equally by Mr Hayden in recent times in this Parliament. The municipal authorities in South African cities such as Durban are , of course, representative of the white population only. Under those circumstances, while it is a matter for the local goverment authority concerned- there can be no question of any formal Federal intervention in a matter of this kind-it would appear to be wholly inappropriate for any civilised Australian town or city to enter into such a relationship with a South African purported counterpart. Senator CHANEY —I address my question to the Minister representing the Treasurer . Is it a fact that, as stated by the Treasurer this morning, the loss of revenue in this financial year, due to the defeat of the tax legislation last night, is an estimated $60m? Is it also a fact that estimates of gross domestic product growth have been revised upwards since the Budget and that greater economic growth could quite easily offset revenue losses of that magnitude? Senator WALSH —It is correct that, had that Bill not been defeated in the Senate last night at the second reading stage by the defenders of tax cheats, $60m would have been collected in this financial year pursuant to passage of that Bill, and ultimately $270m. As to the second part of the question-is the likely increase in gross domestic product which has occurred since the Budget was formulated likely to offset revenue losses of that magnitude-I could not be precise. Over the last six-month period the most significant additional increase in anticipated real GDP growth has come from the agricultural sector and the revenue-- Senator Harradine —Mr President, I rise on a point of order. I have been advised that Senator Walsh mentioned something about people supporting tax cheats. Senator Sir John Carrick —No, defenders of tax cheats. Senator Harradine —Oh, defenders of tax cheats. I was asleep at the time. I take exception to that, Mr President, and I ask you to rule the Minister out of order . Senator Sir John Carrick —Mr President, I rise on the same point of order. I was intending to do so, but I was waiting for the answer to be given. In fact, the words used were that the legislation was defeated in this House last night by the defenders of tax cheats. That is completely offensive to all honourable senators. I take offence at it and I ask that it be withdrawn. The PRESIDENT —Order! I am sorry, if the honourable senator did utter those words, that I missed them. If he did utter those words I would tend to think that they were a reflection on a vote of the Senate, and I ask him to withdraw them. Senator WALSH —Very well, Mr President, I withdraw. I note that a couple of people believe that they have a head that fits the size of the cap. Senator Sir John Carrick —Mr President, I take a point of order. We asked for an unqualified withdrawal and the Minister is now adding insult to his original objectionable statement. Senator Grimes —I rise on the point of order, Mr President. We really are getting to a ridiculous state in this chamber, I suggest, when someone with the record of Senator Sir John Carrick, who so often stood up in this place and blackguarded senators opposite-and consistently did so-gets so sensitive in opposition that he wishes to destroy Question Time in this way. I think Senator Sir John Carrick should remember Mr Truman's dictum about the heat in the kitchen and perhaps cop the fact that he is now sitting where he is and that he is sitting there because of the behaviour he indulged in when he was in government before. Senator Chaney —I rise on the point of order, Mr President. The practice of making the contemptuous withdrawal is one which mercifully has been reduced in this place. When withdrawals are made in terms which indicate that the withdrawal is reluctant and then the comments are reasserted, I believe that the spirit of the Standing Orders is being flouted. I believe that the second point of order taken by Senator Sir John Carrick should be upheld. The PRESIDENT —I think that the comment of the Minister was made after the withdrawal had been made and was quite separate. However, I ask him to be temperate in his reply and to restrict it to the question. Senator WALSH —I just note for the record that, when Senator Harradine woke up, someone apparently told him what I had said. I mean that quite literally. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Minister will answer the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition. Senator WALSH —Thanks to the disruption by Senator Harradine after he woke up, Mr President, I am not quite sure where I was in answering the question. I think I was making the point that additional growth in the farm sector, though it ultimately boosts government revenue, tends to do so in the year following that in which the additional growth takes place. It is quite conceivable, however, that, independently of the farm sector, revenue from other sources could offset that $60m in the present financial year. There has been, however, a number of areas in which there have been some increments in expenditure above those which had been planned in the Budget. I cannot remember how many but I can recall at least five or six areas in which that has happened. There is nothing unusual about that; it has happened under previous governments and will happen under future governments. Regardless of all that, the final point still stands. Governments make judgments about the revenue they can get, the expenditure they should make, and what deficit or-something that used to be occasionally seen but has not been for some time-what surplus they should budget for. Irrespective of whatever changes in the growth estimates may have occurred since the Budget or in the last six months, the fact remains that because the Senate last night rejected that legislation which was to collect $270m- Senator Archer —Steal it. Senator WALSH —Senator Archer says 'steal'. What the legislation sought to recover was the personal income tax which had been evaded under circumstances, that is wet Slutzkins, which Senator Archer's Deputy Leader described on 21 October last year as 'tax legally payable, the payment of which has been illegally evaded'. If Senator Archer believes that the legislation sought to steal money, he had better take the matter up with the former Treasurer, the present Deputy Leader of his Party. Following that diversion, let me say that, regardless of what changes might have taken place in estimates of growth and their effects on government revenue in this or subsequent financial years, the fact remains that, because the actions of the Senate deprived the Government of $270m in revenue, at some time in the future the Government will have either to cut expenditure by a commensurate amount or to impose additional taxes equal to that amount on people who did not participate in wet Slutzkin schemes, who did not benefit from wet Slutzkin schemes and who were not the principal agents in setting up wet Slutzkin schemes, as is the shadow Minister for Finance-- Senator Harradine —You were not even game to have an inquiry. It could be still alive. What are you talking about? Senator WALSH —One or both of those things will have to be done. Senator Harradine now chooses to interject. The PRESIDENT —Order! Will the Minister please restrict his remarks to the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition and ignore the interjections. Senator WALSH —It would be easier, Mr President, if you could send Senator Harradine back to sleep; but, as always, I will follow your directive. The Government will have to recover the money from honest taxpayers who neither benefited from nor set up wet Slutzkin schemes-those who did were illegally evading taxation in the process, according to the present Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party-or it will have to reduce expenditure or increase the Budget deficit either this year or in future years. Conceivably, the Government may have to adopt a mixture of those three things. Senator CHANEY —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Is it not a fact that this Government has, by its own voluntary act, reduced revenue by making changes to its Budget by amounts well in excess of the $60m? Is it not a fact that the same moneys will have to be made up by the same honest taxpayers to whom the Minister is referring? Is it not a fact that in September this year he passed off that question by saying that the money would be quite easily made up from economic growth? Senator WALSH —For this financial year only-of course, the tax legislation rejected by the Senate last night has much heavier implications for the next financial year-the adjustment made to the excise-- Senator Chaney —What about the continuing effect of the excise changes? Don't talk nonsense. Senator WALSH —I am coming to that. The adjustment made to the excise resulted in an estimated loss to revenue of comparable magnitude. In answering Senator Chaney's initial question, I said that independently of the farm sector growth I believed that increased revenue, because of revised estimates of economic growth in general, would offset the $60m in this financial year. I do not, however, accept the implication of Senator Chaney's question concerning the remission for legitimate industry of payment of excise on fuel oil and the reduction in that excise from almost 9c a litre to 1.8c a litre; that is, in round terms, a reduction from 9c a litre to 2c a litre. I do not accept the implication of Senator Chaney's question that the justification for doing that-that is, deciding not to impose a very substantial tax on legitimate industry-is in any way comparable to a decision to free from their taxation obligations people who have participated in and benefited from wet Slutzkin schemes and have thereby, according to the present Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party and former Treasurer , illegally evaded taxation. I do not believe that the moral, economic or any other justification for those two actions is in any way comparable. Senator JONES —My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. I ask the Minister: Is he aware of the scare election tactics of the Queensland Premier who is claiming that all pensioners over 70 years of age are threatened with the loss of the pension? I further ask the Minister whether he can inform the Senate how many elderly pensioners in Queensland will be affected by those pension changes. Can he also inform the Senate whether the aged Premier of Queensland, who is in this age bracket, stands to lose his claim to the over-70 pension and whether this pending loss is therefore the basis of his concern? Senator GRIMES —In answering the last part of Senator Jones's question first, I certainly do not know whether the Premier of Queensland, who according to the records would qualify for an over-70 pension, has ever applied for one. Nor do I wish to know and nor will I seek to know. I have a very firm respect for the confidentiality provisions of the Social Services Act. Nor would I expect that he would apply for a pension in view of the denigrating remarks he has made about pensioners, beneficiaries and welfare recipients in the past. However, after hearing this morning the comments of Mr Bingham, the Deputy Premier of Tasmania, who at the same time as his Leader was in Queensland supporting the National Party described National Party members as a bunch of self-seeking crooks out to promote their own miserable ends, I must say that that creates-- Senator Macklin —Who said that? Senator GRIMES —Mr Bingham made that statement. I must say that that creates some difficulties. Senator Walters —He was thinking of New South Wales. Senator GRIMES —He is your Deputy Leader, ma'am, and he said it. All I know is that certainly under the new income test, which I put to honourable senators is a very generous income test, some pension will still be payable to single people with an income up to a total of $303 a week, and to couples with an income up to $500 a week. I think it is important to remember that under the new income test the Premier of Queensland, on his salary, will not qualify. I suggest that most people in this country would suggest that he should not qualify. I put it to those honourable senators opposite who make comments about this that, if they are to come into this place and vote to cut the revenue by $270m by supporting those who would evade taxation, if they are then to come into this place and suggest that the over-70 pension is unfair and cut the revenue by another $170m, if they also come into this place and say that we should not introduce changes to the taxation on lump sum superannuation, again cutting the revenue by several hundred million dollars, and if they come into this place and say that we should not have an assets test, which would again cut the revenue by another $200m, they should tell us where the revenue is supposed to come from. If they are going to support tax cheats and elderly Premiers of outlying States who wish to receive the over-70 pension, they have to tell us how we are going to support the people who really need support-that is, people without any extra income, people who do not own their own homes and people who through no fault of their own need an adequate pension. That has been the cry of reasonable people on both sides of this House for a long time. Pensioners in Queensland who will be affected by the changes to the over-70 pension number in the low thousands-that includes those who will lose the total pension and those who will lose a part of their pension-out of a total age pensioner population in Queensland of 218,000. I think it is deplorable that the Premier of Queensland, with his wealth and with his income, should indulge in scare tactics like this to try to frighten the 70-year-olds, or any age pensioners in Queensland, when this Government is about providing an adequate redistribution of funds so that those who are in most need can get the help they need. I think Mr Bingham's words are very appropriate. I just think it is surprising that Mr Bingham has uttered those words when his own Premier is in Queensland, hand in hand with the Queensland Premier and the National Party people of whom Mr Bingham is so critical. Senator HAINES —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters. Is the Minister aware of an advertisement which appeared in the Adelaide Advertiser-and presumably in newspapers in other States, including Victoria-on 1 October inviting applications from 'suitably qualified persons who wish to contest' the selection test for permanent appointment to the position of Clerk Class 1? I ask the Minister whether he is aware of the fact that the advertisement concluded with the statement: Permits to sit for the test may be collected from the inquiries counter of the office of the Australian Public Service Board- the advertisement then gives the address in Adelaide- between 8.30 a.m. and 4.45 p.m. on Monday, 3rd October or Tuesday, 4th October 1983. Permits will only be issued on these two days. Applications will not be accepted in writing or by telephone. I ask the Minister whether he believes that this last paragraph of the advertisement contradicts in any way the preceding paragraph, which says, inter alia: The Australian Public Service is an equal employment opportunity employer. Can the Minister also say whether or not he believes that the short notice given -that is two days- for people to collect permits and the fact that they had to be collected in person discriminated against the many school leavers who live in rural areas and who might want a career in the Public Service but who are unable to go to Adelaide, or to the capital cities in the other States, to collect the necessary permits? What action will the Minister take to ensure that young people in Australia who are already disadvantaged by the distance they live from capital cities are not further disadvantaged by application conditions such as that included in this advertisement? Senator BUTTON —Senator Haines asks me whether I am aware of a number of matters. I seek, subject to the limitations from which I suffer, to be aware at all times , but I am certainly not aware of all the matters in her question; nor am I prepared to provide an instant analysis of the content of the advertisement in question without careful consideration. Senator Withers —Go on; have a go. Senator BUTTON —I am going to. Senator Haines has asked whether I think parts of that advertisement are discriminatory against certain people. It sounds highly likely to me, on the basis of what she read. She asks me what action I propose to take. I will refer the matter to the Minister and ask him to give her a thorough answer. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Does the Minister have the latest information on unfilled job vacancies in Australia? Have changes in the number of job vacancies been uniform between the States over the past 12 months? How do changes in job vacancies in South Australia compare with the general trend? Senator WALSH —Regrettably, the latest statistics available, for the 12 months ended August 1983, which reflect changes on the August 1982 figures-in other words, they are figures on the 12-month changes-show that over that period there has been a 22 per cent national decline in the number of job vacancies. It is a matter of great regret to the Government that, nationally, only 17,000 vacant jobs are recorded. Senator Maguire also asked me whether that decline had been uniformly distributed between the States. The answer is no; it has not been uniformly distributed. In the State of Queensland, for example, the decline in the number of jobs available over the same period has been 58 per cent. Fewer than half the jobs available in Queensland, in absolute numbers, 12 months ago are available now. In Queensland, there are 1,300 job vacancies. So if one lives in Queensland and is unemployed, under the present State Government, one has about a one in 84 chance of finding a job. In South Australia the change in the 12 months-I am sure that this will give Senator Maguire some satisfaction-is significantly better than the change nationally. The number of jobs available increased by 10 per cent. The unemployment rate, measured by the number of applications for jobs as against the job vacancies, on a regional basis, in a number of areas in Queensland is absolutely staggering. For example, in Cleveland there are 78 applicants for every available job. In Chermside the figure is 70, in round terms; in Annerley, 76; in Alderley, 62; and in Redcliffe, 67. In Queensland as a whole the figure is 52. It is 67 in Cairns, 52 in Charleville and so on. Those figures reflect both the extremely high rate of unemployment currently prevailing in Queensland and, even more so, the way in which the Queensland economy has collapsed, relative to the rest of Australia, over the last 12 months. The traditional excuse used by Queensland for having a high unemployment ratio from time to time-that people were moving up there from the south-does not account for the changes which have taken place in the last 12 months. Senator WALSH —Earlier at Question Time Senator Childs asked me a question. I am afraid that if I have more than three pieces of paper in front of me I am likely to mislay one of them. Since I answered the question I noticed that I have a note from the Department of Resources and Energy on the subject of synroc. At the time I answered the question I was not aware of the note. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the text of that briefing note from the Department. If there is anything further to add in reply to Senator Childs's question, I will have it incorporated in Hansard at some later date. Leave granted. The note read as follows- SYNROC The unwanted products of the nuclear fuel cycle can be immobilised by incorporating them in SYNROC and without having to put spent nuclear fuel through a full reprocessing operation in a paper delivered at an IAEA Conference in May 1983, Reeve and Ringwood noted that a new SYNROC formulation (SYNROC F) is designed to immobilise dissolved but otherwise unreprocessed spent commercial reactor fuel. the AAEC is currently testing the capability of SYNROC in immobilising plutonium all of the plutonium in spent fuel would be disposed of as waste if spent fuel was placed directly in SYNROC F. The Government understands that claims have been made in the US that laser technology offers a possible process for the upgrading of plutonium from nuclear reactors. The Government however has no information which would enable it to assess the practicability of these claims. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia) —I present the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Publications. Report-by leave-adopted. Fourth Report 1983 Debate resumed from 6 October 1983, on motion by Senator Collard: That the Senate take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Senator Reid) adjourned. Annual Report 1982-83 Debate resumed from 12 October 1983, on motion by Senator Durack: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(3.05) —I wish to make a few very brief comments about the report of the Special Prosecutor which I have not had the opportunity to read in detail. The conclusion which I draw out of it is that whilst Mr Redlich is of the view that a more robust approach by the national government to the question of setting up some sort of agency to deal with sophisticated organised crime would be a worthwhile matter to pursue, the fact is that he also identifies how both private and public institutions of great importance within Australian society have been manipulated with almost the connivance of those in charge of those institutions. The Age of Thursday, 13 October, under the heading 'Banks rapped over tax-rort accounts', summarised part of Mr Redlich's report. The article stated: . . . it was scandalous that at least one of Australia's biggest banks had sanctioned a system of using bank facilitates for 'round-robin' accounts to avoid taxation. The article continued: . . . . like the round-robin of accounts, the opening of false bank accounts resulted in higher daily balances for a bank branch. That is why those activities were connived at by branch managers. There is no doubt that those involved in those banks could have made a reasonable assumption that their system was being abused and misused for the purpose of some sort of tax fraud or some, worse, laundering of ill-gotten gains. Here we had an instance of a private institution, for its own ends, conniving at that arrangement. In relation to public institutions, Mr Redlich referred to Telecom Australia. Senator Chipp —What do you suggest the bank managers could have done? Senator TATE —I am suggesting that the bank managers and the boards of the banks , which must have been aware of this practice at various branches, should have taken steps to ensure that accounts were not opened in false names and that the authorities which might have an interest in those transactions which bore no relation to ordinary commercial need were alerted, whether they be taxation authorities or others. I am suggesting that the matter of private institutions needs to be looked at. In relation to public institutions, such as Telecom, Mr Redlich suggested that there has not been proper co-operation by Telecom management with the police looking into, for example, SP bookie operations. The real point I want to make is that in relation to public institutions, departments and so on, Mr Redlich made the point that such departments and public agencies operate in fear of trespassing upon the jurisdiction of others. He said: They jealously guard their own territory. They frequently lack the basic resources to enable them to discharge their duties effectively, and there is often a division of responsibility which works against efficiency. He was talking about keeping one's turf sacrosanct, not divulging to others what might be amiss and indeed concentrating too much on the regulatory and the ordinary carrying-out of procedures of the department rather than investigating hints of criminal activity which might be going on. There is not only straight- out corruption within some of these agencies and departments but also there is a lack of administrative supervision and robust guidance of these authorities by those responsible for them. The point of my remarks is that I believe that it would be a mistake for this Parliament to put too much weight on expectations relating to the creation, if it is to go ahead, of a National Crimes Authority; that indeed there are other matters within our grasp as legislators, as creators of government and as administrators of departments and public agencies, which we need to deal with. It would be far better if some of our colleagues in these States got on with the job of dealing with the semi-criminal sub-culture in which marihuana is made available. This would be a very important step in dealing with organised crime in Australia. All we are doing by keeping it as a criminal activity is ensuring a cash flow to these criminal syndicates for their more nefarious activities. In relation to the administration of departments, it is extremely important that Ministers and those in charge of public authorities read Mr Redlich's report-it is an excellent report in this regard-and take to heart his injunctions and warnings about the need not to be so concerned about the sacredness of one's own turf but to pursue and to enable others to pursue hints and instances of criminal activity or manipulation of the department's procedures for criminal or fraudulent purposes. Question resolved in the affirmative. Report and Ministerial Statement Debate resumed from 18 October 1983, on motion by Senator Peter Baume: That the Senate take note of the papers. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(3.10) —This report is a very important one . The recommendations made by the Commonwealth Schools Commission will form the basis on which the Government will prepare the States Grants (Schools) Bill which will come before the Parliament for determination some time in the next month or two. On Tuesday I spoke briefly on a couple of features of this report. Today I want to talk about two other features only. The first concerns the computer education program and the comments by the Commonwealth Schools Commission upon the Government's directions to it in relation to such a program. First, I remind the Senate that the Commonwealth Schools Commission drew attention last year to the need for a computer education program. The Commission, on that occasion, gave some indication of what that program might contain and the amount of resources which it would require. I seem to remember that the Commission called for the commitment of $125m over five years. If that is not correct, it is almost correct. I remind the Senate, as well, that before the last election, picking up that recommendation and working to the capacity of government to respond to it, the Liberal and National parties promised the electorate that we would spend $20m a year for five years-that is, $100m-on computer education. I will talk in a moment about what a desirable content might be. The Australian Labor Party Government promised much less. It promised only $25m towards computer education in spite of the fact that that would be inadequate, in the best judgment of the Commonealth Schools Commission, to provide an adequate degree of preparation for Australian schools and Australian teachers for what was needed. The irony is that the Government, in bringing down its education guidelines, has not even stuck to that $25m program. It has now reduced that to an $18m program over three years. Instead of its promise to provide $8m in the first year-another promise broken, another promise dishonoured-it has now offered $6m. In terms of what the Commonwealth Schools Commission indicated was necessary, that is an amount which is totally inadequate. The tasks that need to be fulfilled by a computer education program include computer awareness, making people comfortable with the idea of computers and working with them, the pre-service preparation of teachers, the in-service preparation of those who have been teaching, the provision of computer hardware and the preparation and distribution of computer software programs. Without all those features, there will not be an integrated program. One of the worries of educators has been that the mere provision of computers in schools without the preparation of software or without the assistance given to teachers will lead to machines sitting in corners gathering dust with no one trained to use them or no one confident enough to get the best educational use from them. It is a great pity that the Schools Commission now has to work to such a small program. The only other point I make is that within two of the programs there is a grossly inequitable distribution between government and non-government schools in their shares of the program. I remind the Senate that there are roughly three times as many children in government schools as there are in non-government schools. One would expect that the funds for some of these important programs would be distributed roughly on a three to one basis. The participation and equity program, the centrepiece of the Government's program, gives only about 11 per cent of the funds, only about $1 to $9, to non-government schools-$4.3m as against $38.4m. I do not know how that will produce participation and equity in the poor Catholic schools. That is where six out of seven non-government school children are. Only about 17 per cent of the funds allocated to the computer program are going to the non-government school system. So there is some cause for concern, ahead of the presentation of the States Grants (Schools) Bill, as to the equity issues which lie behind the distribution of funds as between government and non-government schools and which go as well to the adequacy of the amounts of money that have been provided especially for the computer education program. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK(New South Wales)(3.16) —I rise to comment upon appendix B of the report of the Commonwealth Schools Commission. Appendix B is headed 'Summary of Commission Recommendations for 1984 and Government Responses' . There are 57 Commission recommendations. Honourable senators know that when the Fraser Government introduced guidelines to the Commission, the Australian Labor Party made one invariable response. In the first place, it said that guidelines were wrong and that, in fact, the Commission should be given a free hand. It said that guidelines were restrictive and said that the reports of the Commission should be adopted. Senator Button —No, the third bit is not quite correct. That is your version. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —Let me just take up the comment that I am not quite correct. Let us have a little look at that situation. Time after time Hansard shows criticism of the former Government's guidelines. The criticism stated, at the very least, that the guidelines shackled the Commission, they were too restrictive and the Commission's recommendations should be substantially adopted . Does Senator Button agree? Senator Button —No. You are qualifying it again. Senator Sir JOHN CARRICK —I am not qualifying it at all. I am endeavouring to help the Minister because he needs help. I want to give him the result of this situation. There are some 57 recommendations of the Schools Commission. Indeed, it was the advice of this body which the Labor Party said should be taken by governments. Is that modifying it? There is silence from the other side now. The Labor Party said that the advice of this body should be heeded and substantially adopted. What did it do? Let us have a look because the Minister now realises the situation. Fifty-seven recommendations have been listed. Of those 57 recommendations nine were rejected. That word is not mine. The word 'rejected' appears against nine recommendations in that list. Alongside 12 of the recommendations are the two words 'no response'. Nine have been rejected and 12 received no response. Hear those words now that governments should pay attention to the Schools Commission and should heed its advice. Two recommendations have been reserved for funds review, three have been deferred and 11 have been modified. That is a little matter of 37 recommendations out of a total of 57 being either rejected out of hand or substantially modified. Alongside 20 out of 57-35 per cent of them-appears the word 'accepted'. Let me put this situation at rest. I have stood in here repeatedly and heard the Labor Party argue against the restrictive nature of guidelines. Here is a classic situation. The Labor Party had its first opportunity in eight years to bring down guidelines. It brought down those guidelines. As a result, 65 per cent of the recommendations of the Schools Commission were either rejected out of hand or not dealt with. Twelve recommendations received no response. I remind the Senate that the honeyed words used by the Labor Party in opposition as to a line of pursuit are ashes now that it is in government. Once again the Labor Party is forcing its policies and, of course, all those words are forgotten. The Schools Commission in the past has been a very valuable instrumentality. Given independence, given a true representative nature-that is something the Labor Government does not understand-the Schools Commission is capable of bringing forward very valuable recommendations. I can only lament the fact that having brought down 57 recommendations, the great majority of them were either ignored or rejected. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(3.20) —I wish to refer to only one aspect of the Commonwealth Schools Commission report in the five minutes that are available to me-the program in relation to participation and equity-and to highlight the problems that occur in schools and the fact that the concentration the previous Government has given to institutions ultimately will fail. I look at one group; I refer to children who come under the guardianship of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West), children who are not eligible for any government assistance to enable them to stay at school. By and large this group consists of, at the present time-this has changed over the years-refugees from South East Asia who have no parents in Australia and, indeed, many who have no adult relatives in Australia. A very significant number of them have inaccurate dates of birth on their entry papers and are unable to have this rectified. The problem that ensues from their not having any parents or relatives to support them and their inability to determine their correct age is that these children are often not old enough or alternatively too old to receive the appropriate assistance from the Department of Education, and are consequently forced to leave school. If they then receive the unemployment benefit they are able to live. But if they remained in school and in various educational programs it would obviously be beneficial for Australia in the long term and much more beneficial of course for the individuals involved. That problem does not rest only with the schools. It extends to colleges of technical and further education and to other tertiary institutions. It would seem to be much more appropriate if those children who come under the guardianship of the Minister were more able to partake of schooling and hence to continue in what the Government has suggested is an equity and participation program. Really the only way that those problems can be picked up is by aiming programs at the individual children, not by aiming programs at the institutions. The problem that I have given an instance of is one of many which affect individuals who will fail to be catered for under the program that the Government has developed and for which it has received the support of the Schools Commission. I believe it is a blind spot in educational planning in this country that we have constantly funnelled money through that institutionalised support and have failed to look at broader social and equity policies that will eventually enable people to partake of the institutions which are established. Regardless of how well we finally staff, equip and build our institutions, ultimately that will have negligible effect on the social distribution of wealth in this country. The children of the poor will still be poor and the children of the rich will be well off. One has only to look at comparative educational policies throughout the world to discover that putting one's money into the institutionalised educational framework as a solution to fundamental social problems will not solve those problems inasmuch as the individuals do not have either the capacity or the wherewithal to partake of even the best educational facilities which the country is able to provide. I suggest, therefore, if the Government is genuine in seeking a solution to these social problems, that it ceases to look through its educational structure to solve them, that it ceases to mount programs such as the one it is mounting here on participation and equity, and seeks rather to establish fundamental social reforms so that the children of the poor are eventually able to partake of the educational system that we have available. Essentially, of course, they are fundamental social policies which would support families and, for example, the children I have just mentioned who have no family structure. Support to the individual is far more important than the support to the institution. Senator GILES(Western Australia)(3.25) —Mr Deputy President, at the risk of sounding tedious, I think it might be useful to remind the Opposition of the fact that the Australian Labor Party came to government with a quite stunning and extremely limiting deficit from which to attempt to make justifiable, sustainable decisions. One might be forgiven for being stuck for words after hearing once again from the Opposition about all the wonderful things that it promised to do for education, for social welfare and everything else it could possibly think of in this country. Yet, when we come to government facing an enormous deficit we are expected to work blooming wonders in the first seven months-- Senator Peter Baume —Just keep your promises; that is all. Senator GILES —Given time and with the will that we certainly have our promises will be kept. Within the community there is an understanding of the problem that we face, an understanding which the Opposition refuses to acknowledge. We are being strenuously criticised for the fact that in this first Budget we are allocating only $6m to computer education, of which $4.8m will go to government schools and $1.2m will go to non-government schools, a fair sort of ratio I would have thought in view of the fact that we will be adhering to our principle of the most needy schools, requiring the most help, receiving the most assistance. This and all the other programs are available not only to government schools but also to non-government schools throughout this nation. Provided they are registered by their State authorities all schools will be eligible for the funds that are being made available. The mere provision of computers is obviously not the solution to this problem. Over a period of years we just as obviously need to train people and to produce the software. We have to make sure that the hardware is available. In this first Budget the amount of $6m is not only probably just as much as we can afford but also probably just as much as we can sensibly spend in the period . Over three years $18m will be provided. Because this is a major new program it is important not to rush its implementation. The computer education program is one of the programs on which the Commonwealth Schools Commission will shortly be presenting supplementary reports. Senator Button —It should have happened seven years ago, Senator. It is a tragedy. Senator GILES —Of course, it should have, and it would have cost considerably less then I would have thought. Other criticisms that are being made of the difference between what is being made available for government and non- government systems I think should all be seen in the light of what we have referred to continually. That is the fact that the neediest schools will be getting the lion's share of the cake, rather than the money being spread thinly and evenly, which would be in every respect a most inequitable state of affairs. Of the recommendations that have been deferred, many are associated with ongoing reviews and programs which are still in the course of being planned. Once again I think it is quite unfair of the Opposition to expect us to believe all the wonderful things it would have done in the face of a deficit of $9.5 billion. We cannot ever get the proof of that, of course. It is very easy for them to talk. But I strongly believe, and people closely involved with both non-government and government education systems will agree with me, that there is a heck of a lot greater chance of equity and justice within the state school and the non- government school systems within the term of an Australian Labor Government. Finally, I would like to agree very strongly with Senator Macklin when he points to the inadequacies of institutional solutions to fundamental social problems and calls for fundamental social reforms. I should like to remind the Senate of the fact that to supplement our efforts in the course of developing youth policies the Labor Party has asked an Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development team to visit Australia. This team will be bringing experts to review our current policies and to provide assistance for planning for the future. Question resolved in the affirmative. Report and Ministerial Statement Debate resumed from 18 October 1983, on motion by Senator Peter Baume: That the Senate take note of the papers. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(3.31) —I should like to make a brief comment on the remarks of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission on the quality of access. We in the Australian Democrats are extremely pleased to see that the Commission will continue its work in this area. We note its particular emphasis on Aboriginal, migrant, low income groups, women and disabled people who continue to be under represented in our tertiary institutions and the endeavour that the Commission suggests that we need to make to advantage their access. In particular, I am deeply concerned that the Aboriginal people are still finding so many difficulties in gaining access to tertiary institutions and tertiary education. There is an urgent need that the Aboriginal peoples have people of their own race qualified in so many areas, particularly, at the moment, in the area of medicine. The problems that continue to occur in the area of Aboriginal health, I believe, will ultimately be solved only by the various Aboriginal health services having Aboriginal doctors who are able to integrate both traditional medicine and Western medicine. Another matter relates to the problems of the qualifications of Aboriginal people in the area of child care. There is at the moment some real pressure being put on a number of child care institutions to transfer their facilities to Aboriginal control. The Democrats support that, but much depends on the speed with which it is done. Very severe problems could arise because of the lack at the moment of suitably qualified Aboriginal child care people. I think that raises yet again the fact that in the past we have done so little to have suitably qualified people from the Aboriginal race in these areas. I refer to another problem which has arisen in quite a number of institutions. This involves the over-emphasis which has been given to the leaving certificate or the higher school certificate or its equivalent in the various States. Many mature age students are seeking to enter into various faculties in tertiary institutions. I refer, in particular, to medical faculties. These students find that the qualifications they had when they left school are insufficient for them to gain entrance to schools of medicine, in particular around Australia, because of the very high pressure on those schools. Invariably, the advice has been given to them that they ought to go to one of the other faculties within the institution. For example, it is generally suggested that they undertake a general science degree, which many people do. Some have undertaken, for example, a degree in veterinary science, which has similar basic components. At a later stage these people have reapplied for entrance to medical school and more often than not they have again been knocked back on the basis that they still have, of course, as is inevitably the case, a low leaving certificate or higher school certificate score. What is not taken into account is the fact that these people are now mature age students. They have shown that they are able to partake of tertiary education, that they have the qualities to undertake the study at that level and, what is more, they have shown a remarkable determination to want to get into a medical school. All studies have shown, without exception, that the mature age student is a better bet than anybody else for tertiary education. These students put their heads down and they get into their studies and they get through them in a minimum amount of time. It seems to me, particularly in the area of medicine which has such high pressure on entrants, that the people with those types of backgrounds, who are looking at going to medical school and who have attempted to go through all the proper steps ought to have a much better chance than they currently have of gaining admittance. The Federal Government, through its funding policies, has a great deal of control over what goes on at these institutions. I am not suggesting that it ought to dictate to the universities but I believe that a greater liberation of the ability for mature age students to enter into those medical faculties would certainly be to the benefit of this country. Debate (on motion by Senator Peter Baume) adjourned. Report Debate resumed from 18 October 1983, on motion by Senator Peter Baume: That the Senate take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Senator Peter Baume) adjourned. Report 1983 Debate resumed from 18 October 1983, on motion by Senator Archer: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(3.38) —I was speaking on this matter on 18 October and had almost drawn my remarks to a conclusion. I will conclude by saying that I urge that the industry should keep its discussions going and that it should always be ahead of the Government, and not waiting on government direction. Much in this report by the Industries Assistance Commission on the wheat industry leads me to believe that the industry will have to lead itself through the minefield that it is in. Page 54 of the report discusses the wheat finance fund. Various alternatives for distributing the $100m or so that will be left in the fund when it is wound up were presented. Although it was suggested in one place that the fund could be used for industry management, I believe that this would not be fair to the growers over many years. I believe it should be returned to those who contributed to it. But of course I leave this in the hands of the industry to make that decision. Above all, the wheat growers must continue to demonstrate their efficiency. The Board must be seen to be as efficient as it is possible to be. It must be able to demonstrate that it is operating in the best interests of the growers and, of course, in the best interests of the country at large. I think the document is a valuable discussion piece. I hope that it is able to assist the industry in due course. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(3.40) — The Australian Democrats welcome the Industries Assistance Commission report which has already become an extremely controversial report within the wheat industry. I wish to draw attention to one item only which was dealt with in the report, that is, the monopoly that the Australian Wheat Board has on sales of wheat within Australia. This is an extremely important issue. It has relevance to many rural producers, especially given the fact that the principle raised here is one which becomes much more relevant in other areas of private production. The Australian Democrats believe that it is time to have a thorough investigation of the appropriateness of the orderly marketing arrangements within the rural industry. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics, which recently conducted an experiment with the ORANI model, was referred to in the report. It was suggested that wheatgrowers were disadvantaged by the existing structure to the extent of $134. 62 a week for each grower. That is an extraordinary possibility. To be fair, of course, the Industries Assistance Commission queried the validity of that price. Nevertheless, a publication of the New South Wales Department of Agriculture suggests that out of an expected price of about $170 a tonne the Australian Wheat Board would be deducting a total of $49.50 in various costs and charges and that, by comparison, the farmers' costs for materials and machinery were budgeted at about $45 with further costs for depreciation, interest rates and overhead. It is, of course, possible for a grower to sell his wheat legally. First of all he must have the approval of the Australian Wheat Board and, in practice, this is not often given except in certain circumstances. At a time of increasing costs to the person on the land, the Australian Democrats encourage the Government to look closely at the recommendation which says that private producers should be permitted to operate freely on the domestic market in competition with the Australian Wheat Board. Carrying on from this, we see a need to look constantly at the appropriateness of the form of orderly marketing used in rural industry so that the end result is a better deal for the producers rather than the collection of funds for administrative purposes, the collection of funds for bodies that tend to perpetuate themselves when they are not necessarily doing the best job possible for the producer. One area in which the rural producer at the moment obviously has been disadvantaged by the Wheat Board is clearly set out at page 18 of the report. The report describes the Australian Wheat Board's policy concerning the sale of wheat for stock feed as the 'opportunity cost of diverting wheat from export markets to the domestic stock feed market'. The IAC appears to be saying that the Australian Wheat Board's determination to get the most dollars possible for its wheat could end up with the rural producer being worse off. This is an absurd situation. We believe that in any orderly arrangement for marketing of any rural product what always must be of paramount concern is that the producer gets the maximum return possible. In the past 10 years producers' costs have escalated beyond imagination and yet the return has decreased. We found in 1972 in most areas that those crossed over. Essentially what it means is that it becomes a disincentive to grow anything in this country because of escalating costs and diminishing returns. We suggest that this particular report ought to be looked at because, if there are ways in which the wheatgrowers can sell on the domestic market, particularly in the stock feed area, such action ought to be facilitated to enhance returns to the growers. Question resolved in the affirmative. Consideration resumed from 19 October 1983, on motion by Senator Robert Ray: That the Senate take note of the report. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(3.45) —I move: That it is the view of the Senate- (a) that decisions of the Commonwealth Parliament concerning financial support for government and non-government schools in recent years have been grossly misrepresented to the Public by the opponents of non-government schools; and (b) that consideration should be given to Commonwealth grants to the States for schools being presented in a new and consistent way by providing for a basic per capita grant in respect of all schoolchildren, whether in government or non- government schools, and by providing for supplementary needs-based grants for schools incorporating the special and supplementary programs of the Schools Commission. I gave notice of this motion on 21 April, the first sitting week of this Parliament. What stirred me to move it was the preceding election campaign. During the months of February and early March, the Australian Teachers Federation, in particular, various teacher unions and a number of other bodies directly opposed to Commonwealth or taxpayer funding to non-government schools placed advertisements in newspapers and on radio and television which misrepresented the taxpayers support for non-government schools. In brief, the accusation that was levelled by this partisan group was that government schools are suffering because money has been transferred by the Commonwealth Government away from those State schools and given to independent schools. They said that there was a trend throughout the Fraser government whereby more money was given increasingly to the independent schools and that had denied money to the Government schools. This was a gross misrepresentation of the state of public support for schools of all kinds in Australia. I believe that if we were to reorder the way in which Commonwealth money goes to the States and is distributed to the non-government and the government schools we would directly correct that abuse. Let me illustrate the point by referring to just one advertisement which appeared in the Sunday Mail in South Australia on 13 February. The advertisement was placed by the Australian Teachers Federation and was headed: Our children need to win this election. The article stated: As a nation we've tried to offer the best possible education in our government schools. We've agreed that these schools should meet the needs of children and our community. But the agreement is being torn apart. At a time when the community faces alarming unemployment and technological change, work on national curriculum and research has been scrapped. In just seven years, $2500 million has been given to private schools at the expense of government schools. I emphasise that claim again which I regard as a gross misrepresentation: In just seven years, $2500 million has been given to private schools at the expense of government schools. The allegation in the advertisement is that the youth unemployment which besets Australia is traceable to an imbalance now in the way in which governments provide funds to the schools. That imbalance arises because the previous Liberal and National Party Government in Canberra was taking money away from the state schools and giving it to the independent schools. Senator Button —Your Prime Minister used to say that unemployment was a direct consequence of the education system. Senator TEAGUE —No. Senator Button will remember that I stood apart from any such allegation. I was a signatory to a report entitled 'Preparation for the Workforce'. Senator Robertson and I were parties to bringing it before the Senate. I can attest to it as a subsequent Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts. In chapter 1 we placed the blame for unemployment on economic factors, not educational factors. Senator Button will remember, if he goes back in Hansard, that he even acknowledged that ' enlightened Senator Teague at least understands that'. Some people in Australia were alleging that educational factors were to blame. What I am saying is that this advertisement by a partisan group, supporting the Australian Labor Party, is implying that the unemployment outcome is arising because of the way in which education institutions have been funded, and it is deliberately there in the advertisement. It is a gross misrepresentation, equally as gross as the one to which reference has been made and which has said that in past years all of our unemployment problem is directly attributable to the teachers and to the lousy education system. I reject that assertion, and I reject the gross misrepresentation by the Australian Teachers Federation in this advertisement, and in advertisements on radio and television at the time. I continue to quote from the advertisement: And in 1982 alone, disadvantaged government schools with 350,000 children received $24m- only $24m- while wealthy private schools with 127,000 children were allocated $50m. That is a gross misrepresentation because already the children in those disadvantaged government schools, so-called, have received about $100m through taxpayer support, in addition to the primary recurrent help for those schools, which is substantial, at more than $2,000 per head. There is a supplementary small program, called the disadvantaged schools program, which happens to have $ 24m allocated to it. The advertisers have chosen, out of context, an amount of $ 50m, which happened to go only as a small part of the total program of cost for independent schools. So the advertisement continues: These Fraser government policies have caused divisions in our community. Australian teachers believe we need to reverse these trends. Why it was possible for these lobbies so grossly to misrepresent taxpayer support for Australian schools comes about through the indirect way that the Commonwealth Government makes provision for education in all of the schools in Australia. The Senate is well aware that the Commonwealth gives more than $4 billion in untied recurrent grants to the States. That is $4 billion and more going from the Commonwealth, united, to the State governments to distribute. That amount will more than pay for all of the State school programs in Australia . The direct educational spending of the Commonwealth Government that is channelled through programs of the Schools Commission is supplementary to that, and it is a gross misrepresentation of the Commonwealth's financial support for education if it is said that that is the only money that is going to schools, whether government or non-government. I am seeking to find support in the Senate for the proposition that consideration be given to Commonwealth grants to the States being presented in a new and consistent way, in a way that incorporates the untied State grants that are then eventually spent on education and the direct Commonwealth grants that go to government and non-government schools alike through programs of the Schools Commission. I am urging that consideration be given to that. I am not saying that the proposal or the model that I am about to put forward is the one that must be followed. I am saying that because the situation has been so grossly misrepresented, not only in the last election campaign but in earlier years, the public has become confused about the source of direct support for schools. Some of it is coming from the States. Some of it comes from the Commonwealth. Even some of the State money is received from the Commonwealth. Then there are some fees coming from individual families as well. To put that all into a single perspective is very difficult because of the indirectness of some of the grants. Attention has been drawn directly to this matter. It happened a few weeks after a Notice of Motion of mine in the Senate in April, when the Chairman of the Schools Commission, Dr Peter Tannock, delivered a paper in Perth to the conference of the Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science on 17 May this year. I shall quote part of his paper. I commend all of it very much to the Senate. I regard all of it as an essential introduction to the matters that I shall be raising later in my speech today. Dr Tannock said: It is the thesis of this paper that now, 10 years on from the Karmel Report, might be a good time to review the roles and financial responsibilities of Commonwealth and State governments in school level education. He said that because of the enormous infusion of funds, during both the Whitlam Government period and the Fraser Government period, towards education in Australia, we have reached a situation in which there is a considerable imbalance in the funding responsibilities of the Commonwealth and State governments and there has also been the creation of some confusion about the basic purpose of Commonwealth allocations for schools, and of State allocations for non-government schools. Dr Tannock directly cites some of these imbalances in the following way: First, 24 per cent of Australia's school children attend independent schools; 76 per cent attend government schools. Of the more than $7, 000m that is spent from public funds, out of the taxpayers' pockets, on schools in Australia this year, 1983, $1.2 billion is provided by the Commonwealth and $ 5.8 billion is provided by the States. So the minority part is coming directly from the Commonwealth and the great majority is coming through the programs of the States. Coming to that smaller part coming from the Commonwealth, 58 per cent of it-that is, $562m-in terms of recurrent funds will go to non-government schools in 1983, and 42 per cent will be going to government schools. That is the matter, that is the rub, that the opponents of the non-government schools have picked upon. They did not tell the public that only $1.2 billion out of $7 billion is coming in this form from the Commonwealth. Of that small part, the $1.2 billion, it happens that a majority is going to non-government schools. So they were able to put forth propaganda to say: 'A majority of financial support going to schools from the Commonwealth is going to non- government schools. It is going even to those wealthy schools that one sees around in the cities. What about the disadvantaged state schools that are getting only 42 per cent of all of the Commonwealth's direct spending on education?' That assertion neglects the fact that the lion's share of taxpayer support for government schools is coming from a different source. We could go on with such contrasts or notes of this imbalance. In contrast to this breakdown of the Commonwealth program-58 per cent to 42 per cent-only 6 per cent of State education funding is going to non-government schools and 94 per cent, or $4,281m of State recurrent expenditure on schools, is going to government schools. The propagandists of the last election campaign did not refer to that at all. They did not say that, whilst there is this imbalance in the supplementary programs of the Commonwealth through the Schools Commission, there is at the same time an enormous imbalance in favour of government schools in funding by State governments. It is my contention that we will overcome the potential for such misrepresentation only if we put all of the programs together and present them to the public within one perspective. Senator Grimes —Don't you ever stop? Senator TEAGUE —Senator Grimes has just come into the chamber. He was delighted by my speeches on education matters yesterday and this morning. I promise that what I am saying now is new and reinforcing. I am, indeed, putting forward a solution to some of the problems that I was referring to this morning and yesterday. Let me put this matter into yet another perspective. Over the last six years taxpayers' support for children in non-government schools has been in direct proportion to the cost of providing a state school place. Therefore, the taxpayer provides 100 per cent of the cost of a state school place for 76 per cent of children who attend state schools. However, the taxpayer provides up to about 50 per cent of the cost of a non-government school place. There has been a tied percentage in the proportion of support for non-government schools relative to government schools. This has led to a trend over the last few years in that when there has been an increase in moneys going to government schools there has been a corresponding increase in moneys going to non-government schools. There has been a greater increase for non-government schools in this regard because in all these years increasing numbers of children have enrolled in independent schools. Because of the flow away from government to independent schools there has been a linked automatic increase in the trend of support for non-government schools. In all the years of the last decade-during the Whitlam Government years and the Fraser Government years-the non-government schools of Australia have received, at the most, 60 per cent of their recurrent support from the taxpayer while the government schools have received 100 per cent. It is a gross misrepresentation for the propaganda of the teachers federations, as happened in the last election, to overlook that when trying to persuade the public that changes are needed. I propose that the basic grant that has been given in recent years to all independent schools be a basic grant for all schools alike-schools in the government sector and in the non-government sector. If this grant had reached a level two years ago of 20 per cent of the cost of a government school place that should be the basic grant that is given to all schools alike. Money could be extracted from untied Commonwealth grants to the States and those untied grants could be reordered. The 20 per cent of the cost of a government school place should be given directly to schools under the same program that gives 20 per cent of the same cost of a government school place to independent schools. I also propose that in addition to the basic grant to be given to all schools alike there be supplementary needs based grants for schools which in recent years have received level 2 or level 3 supplementation through the Schools Commission or have been the subject of special programs of assistance such as the country areas program, the disadvantaged schools program, the special education program, the multicultural education program and so on. Those grants can fund supplementary programs, and those schools which were regarded as level 2 and level 3 schools and which need additional educational resources would still continue to receive supplementary needs based grants. If grants of all kinds are handled by the one mechanism and within the one perspective, not only will the Parliament understand the matter more readily but also the public will see clearly that there is a reasonable basis for the taxpayers' support of schools in Australia and we will avoid the misrepresentation that we have seen. Let me refer to the Schools Commission report for 1984 which was debated in the Senate earlier this afternoon. Notwithstanding the ALP Government's guidelines to the Schools Commission, we find that for 1984 government schools will receive a recurrent allocation of $594,952,000 whereas non-government schools will receive a greater amount of $626,772,000. Therefore, the propaganda that the teachers federations put up in heaps to the former Government could equally be put to the present Labor Government and it would be just as gross a misrepresentation. These groups would be alleging that the greater amount coming through the Schools Commission to non-government schools from the Hawke Labor Government-$626m compared with $594m to go to government schools-is an imbalance that needs correction. But in fact, I surmise, the response of the Hawke Labor Government would be the same response as I am giving now and the same response as the Schools Commission would give. That response would be: 'Do not take out of context this rather small amount of support from the taxpayer for schools. It is only $1.2 billion when the total amount exceeds $7 billion. To gain balance in looking at the two sectors one needs to look at the total picture'. A publication of the Australian Bureau of Statistics in January this year gives the most up to date analysis of government outlays on education classified by economic type. The Bureau indicates on page 5 of that document that in the 1980- 81 financial year the Commonwealth Government provided $2,368m for schools for all types in Australia and that the States, out of their own resources and from non-specific Commonwealth Government grants provided $4,661m. This latter figure could be totally found from Commonwealth untied grants to the States, which in 1980-81 amounted to $6,018m. It is not possible to show that the States have applied the moneys they received from the Commonwealth through untied grants fully to educational purposes in the States, but if they did they would still have money left over from Commonwealth untied grants and would be able to provide fully for all their spending on education. It could be said, without distortion, that the moneys provided by the Commonwealth completely pay for education in our schools of all types and that the State moneys are provided entirely from the Commonwealth untied grants. It is within these broader perspectives that I bring this motion before the Senate-so that there can be consideration, a fresh look, a review of the perspective in which these moneys are provided to government and non- government schools. I am happy to say that the Chairman of the Schools Commission, Dr Tannock, and the Schools Commission itself have called for such a review and such a reordering. To support my conclusion, I quote again from Dr Tannock's paper to ANZAAS. He said: As the Commission has pointed out in this report, and in its discussion paper, 'Some Aspects of School Finance in Australia', this pattern of provision for school finance in Australia is unbalanced, somewhat irrational and has contributed significantly to some of the confusions and tensions that surround education policy and public debate on it in Australia. The Commission also pointed out that redressing these funding imbalances may be a necessary precondition to shifting the education debate away from the time-honoured State- aid issue and towards more urgent matters such as the reform of secondary education. I heartily concur with those remarks. I also note that the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) in mid-May said: The fact is, the targets set in 1973 by the Interim Committee for the Schools Commission-the Karmel targets as they have been known-have been met. Since the time they were met, the Commission, in major portions of its program, has largely lacked direction. That is, some of its main programs appear, at least, to lack a coherent rationale other than simply providing general contributions to the recurrent and capital support of schools. The Minister for Education, the Chairman and members of the Schools Commission and those of us in the Opposition all believe that there is a time for a single perspective in educational finance which will be balanced, have clear goals and enable the public to see steps towards the achievement of those goals. Especially, it should be a perspective in which there will not be gross misrepresentation of the kind that we saw during the last election campaign. Therefore, I commend to the Senate the motion that I have moved: That consideration should be given to Commonwealth grants to the States for schools being presented in a new and consistent way by providing for a basic per capita grant in respect of all schoolchildren, whether in government or non- government schools, and by providing for supplementary needs-based grants for schools incorporating the special and supplementary programs of the Schools Commission. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(4.15) —I thank Senator Macklin for enabling me to enter very briefly into this debate. Because of other commitments, I will have to be extremely brief. In supporting Senator Teague's motion, I observe that I do not wish that support to be regarded as support for an interpretation of the proposal contained in paragraph (b). Senator Peter Baume —Nor a rejection, I take it. Senator HARRADINE —Nor a rejection of it; but, as I understand it, the burden of the motion is that the debate on education funding be educated and not misrepresented. I agree with Senator Teague that, in fact, it has been misrepresented. It has been misrepresented throughout the structures of one political party and throughout certain structures of the trade union movement. It has been misrepresented quite deliberately by the New South Wales Teachers Federation. The New South Wales Teachers Federation was responsible for preparing a draft of the Australian Council of Trade Unions Congress decision relating to education. With the exception of me, nobody in this chamber has been a delegate to an ACTU congress. I know what occurs there. Material on education is left to the teachers. Unfortunately, the teachers misrepresented the situation and were not picked up on that misrepresentation. I quote from page 52 of the policy decisions of the ACTU Congress 1983 entitled 'Education'. Paragraph 3.1.2 states: Congress declares that the primary obligation of Governments is to provide and maintain government school systems of the highest standard open to all children and that the Australian Government must contribute financial and political resources towards achieving that objective. Paragraph 3.1.3 states: To this end, Congress notes the extraordinary state of affairs which exists in 1983 whereby non-Government schools with 24 per cent of students receive more money from the Commonwealth Government than Government schools with 76 per cent of students. Congress further notes that during the period of the Fraser Government a total of $2,500,000,000 of Commonwealth Government recurrent funds were directed away from the Government School System to Private Schools. Senator Peter Baume —How dishonest can it get? Senator HARRADINE —That is totally dishonest. It is proof of what Senator Teague has been saying. This statement came from the New South Wales Teachers Federation. I would have thought that teachers were bound to teach the truth objectively, not to manipulate the facts for their own reasons. This is precisely what has occurred. That is one example. There are other examples of this that should be stamped upon by people in all political parties and by those in no political party. I believe it is in the interests of people within the Australian Labor Party to be aware of what is going on in this area because certain decisions taken in some States in recent days have been taken on the basis of this dishonest manipulation of the facts. Unfortunately, these decisions will come back to haunt the people. I am sure that members of the Labor Party in New South Wales, for example, are feeling now that they should have acted against the dishonest manipulators in the New South Wales Teachers Federation before this because the Minister in that State is now faced with having to say precisely that to the Teachers Federation. I believe that Senator Teague, in bringing this matter to the attention of the Senate, deserves the recognition of all the Senate. All he is asking of the Senate is that it endorse a proposition which will ensure that the debate on education funding is undertaken in an honest and educated fashion. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(4.21) —Senator Teague's motion is an interesting one. I think it is reasonably able to be supported, for two reasons. First, in regard to paragraph (a), I do not think there is a shadow of doubt that opponents of non-government schools have grossly misrepresented various facts to the public. However, that paragraph's one real deficiency is that opponents of government schools have also grossly misrepresented the facts. In any debate about education in Australia the area of funding probably would get a special prize for the way it has led to gross misrepresentation on both sides. Unfortunately, Senator Teague's motion is deficient in that it does not recognise that the type of argument and debate that has gone on has been puerile on both sides, not simply on one side. I do not think that simply saying there has been wrong on only one side contributes very much to getting the debate on to an even keel. I hope he would admit that there has been gross misrepresentation on both sides in this regard. Unfortunately, this is an area in which statitics have been used to boost particular arguments, and they have misused in many fora. In fact, I remember speaking at a meeting where the argument used to show how poorly non-government schools were treated involved the treatment of only the State funds. This type of absurdity gets us nowhere and really clouds the issue of the correct distribution of funds, which ultimately comes from the taxpayer. Whether they go through State Treasuries or the Federal Treasury, they ultimately come from the same group of people. So I think that one could support proposition (a) but with the reservation that it is a deficient proposition because the gross misrepresentation has taken place on both sides, not only one. I turn to paragraph (b) in Senator Teague's motion, which I think contains the most substantive proposition; the first one is probably just a little bit of flag waving. In the second proposition Senator Teague puts forward a motion for consideration. If one were asked whether or not there ought to be a consideration of this proposition it would hardly seem to me to be an appropriate response in an education debate to say that one should not consider whatever it is which Senator Teague has spent some considerable time and energy putting together and which he wishes to present. In that sense the Australian Democrats would be happy to support a motion which says that there should be consideration of a particular item. However, I would like to make a few comments on the proposition that Senator Teague has put forward because I think that it suffers from a couple of very acute problems. Certainly I would be very interested to hear the comments of Senator Baume, as an ex-Minister for Education, on the proposition that State governments would be amenable to this proposition. As I read it, it is an integral part of the proposition that the States would have to acknowledge that the basic grant is their money. Currently in Queensland, where there is to be a State election this week, people are very keen on pointing out how much of the State budget is currently being spent on education. Indeed, some of the parties in Queensland are spending a great deal of money on television advertising to point out that 25 per cent of the State Budget is being spent on education. If we follow what Senator Teague is suggesting, the States are about to lose a large percentage of that money because the Commonwealth is going to say that it is its money. It is not as simple as it may seem to get States to agree that a certain amount of money shall be henceforth acknowledged, publicly, and genuflected to, as being Commonwealth money when the States say that it happens to be their money, that the Commonwealth got its grubby hands on it and is now giving it back to them. Senator Peter Baume —It depends where honesty rests. Senator MACKLIN —Honesty in this area is sometimes something which resides only on Government benches, whether at a Federal or State level. I have heard Senator Baume argue strongly on public platforms about the contribution that the Commonwealth makes and I have also heard his counterpart in my own State argue equally as strongly that the money was really the State's. The proposition that Senator Teague has put forward is a political proposition and we have to meet the issue of where that money will finally rest in terms of the States saying: ' That is out money'. If one follows some of the arguments that Senator Teague presented, State governments could not argue that any of the money is theirs; ultimately, all of the money would be the Commonwealth's. Presumably the overwhelming power of the purse has finally got hold of the federation and there is a final acceptance that all the money really belongs to the Commonwealth. Other people would like to argue that all the money really belongs to the taxpayer. The State governments want to argue that it belongs to them and is only on loan to the Commonwealth. So it is not as simple a matter as waving a wand. I acknowledge the proposition lying behind Senator Teague's notion of getting this debate back onto an even keel-as the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans ) would say, it sounded like a good idea at the time-but when we actually try to implement it we would run into the most hairy problems with the State governments. I personally would not like to be in the shoes of the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs, Senator Ryan, when she has to trot off to the State governments-even though the majority of them are Labor governments-to sell the idea to them. I am sure she would be shown the door rather rapidly, whether she be talking to a Labor government, as in most of the States, or the Liberal Government in Tasmania. I do not know what the Government is in Queensland at the moment; it is a bit difficult to pick. Senator Colston —We will tell you on Monday. Senator MACKLIN —It might take a little longer than Monday. The first problem- the political problem-is the acknowledgment of whose money it actually is. That is not an easy matter in Australian federal terms finally to work out. The substantive problem is this: The suggestion that we ought to have a base per capita grant can be attacked on a number of equity grounds, not the least of which is that one has first of all to go back another step and say, in regard to the distribution of any funds through institutions for the education of children , that if we wish to achieve ultimately an equal opportunity for every child we have to admit that the funding to any institution must have the capacity to range from zero to 100 per cent. That is a theoretical possibility. We know that will not occur in Australia simply because the funding since 1972 has brought the schools somewhat closer together. As a theoretical exercise, one cannot say that there ought to be a basic per capita grant and still say that one upholds the notion of equality of opportunity. I can point out some schools in my own State of Queensland-doubtless, Senator Teague can point out similar schools in his State-which fall far behind the standard of other schools. Here I am thinking of a relatively remote school-it happens to be a non-government school; it is a convent school-which I believe ought to have been closed down years ago. The school building itself is a fire trap. I do not think that the teachers in the school have a qualification among them. The pupils are getting a pretty raw deal. That happens to be the case at that particular school which I have in mind. I will not name it because I am sure it would be very demoralising to the teachers to hear those comments, but it happens to be the case. I think that every honourable senator would be able to think of a school in his or her State which is akin to that school, if not as bad. Senator Grimes —Senator Teague would say that that is freedom of choice for the children and their parents. Senator MACKLIN —Freedom of choice in that regard-- Senator Teague —Give them supplementary grants. Senator MACKLIN —That was not Senator Teague's proposition. The proposition which he put forward was for a basic per capita grant in respect of all children . I am simply raising the theoretical problem that if there is to be a basic per capita grant-he did mention the possibility that it might be about 20 per cent- it could be exceeded, quite readily, in some schools. I do not know whether it would be exceeded at the upper level. However, some schools could exceed it at the minimum level. That aside, let us say that the grant does fall within the range of between 20 per cent and 80 per cent-I grant Senator Teague's point-and take the next step from there. If we are to give that basic per capita grant in respect of all school children, I presume-I was following the tenor of his argument as closely as I could-it will still go to the institutions. It does not meet the point that I have raised in the Senate on a number of occasions that a very well off school, or even a reasonable school, be it government or non- government, has within that school children who come from a very wide variety of backgrounds. Let me take as an example the government school which my own children attend. That school happens to be classified as a disadvantaged school. There is no way in the world that anybody would say, looking at my income, that my children were disadvantaged in terms of the distribution of incomes in Australia. Senator Grimes —Only through inheritance. Senator MACKLIN —That is a very unkind remark by the honourable senator regarding inheritance. My children may think that they are also disadvantaged because of that. I have not asked them. I will have to ask them when I see them. For example, let us consider the government school, the disadvantaged school, which my children attend. My children are not disadvantaged in terms of income. I am able to supply them with a whole range of educational opportunities, not the least of which is that my own and my wife's professional backgrounds are in education. We are able to provide them with a whole host of other possibilities which lots of children in Australia do not have. Yet the school itself is designated as a disadvantaged school. I expand that further by saying that in many ways that school is not disadvantaged. The reason why it is classified as disadvantaged relates to the ethnic background of many of the children who attend that school. The school has a very large Aboriginal and Greek population. It happens to be in the area which is the well in which new migrant waves come. At the moment there are many Vietnamese children in the school. Senator Peter Baume —To be fair, the term 'disadvantaged' there is a funding convenience, not in respect of social status. Senator MACKLIN —Yes, I am coming to that. That is what I am developing the argument about. That is precisely the dichotomy which I am trying to develop. The school itself provides to my children, who are from an Anglo-Saxon background, a vast array of tremendously beneficial inputs from a whole host of cultures. I happen to believe that my children, in going to that school, are advantaged over most children in Australia. It is a tremendously exciting and vibrant place for my children to be in. That is why I send them there, quite apart from the very high quality of basic teaching that the teachers in that government school provide. Here I am talking about reading, writing and a whole host of other subjects. I mention that because quite a number of comments have been made in this place in education debates which denigrate government schools and teachers in government schools. I wish to put it on the record that I do not go along with that type of wholesale denigration. If one wants to say something about a school, one has to be much more specific and talk about particular teachers and particular schools. That school, as Senator Peter Baume has suggested, is categorised as disadvantaged for funding purposes. I believe that it is in no way disadvantaged . I believe it has a whole host of advantages which are not given to other schools. To look at a basic per capita grant and then go on to say that we will have supplementary needs-based grants and supplementary grants under the current arrangements makes the situation very difficult. Essentially we are dealing with institutions, and education deals with kids. That is the dichotomy that we are constantly running up against in these debates. On the other hand, at the school which my children attend, some children-I raised this earlier when we were dealing with some reports-are recent arrivals in this country from Vietnam. They have no parents and no supporting adults. In fact, they come under the designation of wards of the State-that is, of my own State-and a range of supplementary grants is provided to them basically through the Department of Social Security. Those children are in very difficult circumstances in the initial year at least in which they arrive in Australia. They will always suffer from the problem of the war in Vietnam, the breaking up of their families and being deprived of their parents and other adult figures in their lives. That can never be supplemented by finance. But essentially, of course, their problems can never be picked up-no matter how good the school is. They can only be picked up by providing them with other social needs, that is, love and security, which are provided by a family arrangement. No matter what we do with the funding of a school at that level it does not help that child. In essence, the suggestion that we ought to have this basic grant and then add supplementary needs based grants does not get at the real problem. I do not think it will help in actually restoring any sanity to the education debate. In that way, I do not really feel that it would meet the type of very laudable criteria and goals that Senator Teague was wishing in bringing forward this notice of motion. On a number of occasions I have outlined-I will not do so now-the way in which we really do need to move forward. It is not by putting down a priori funding possibilities in this Senate or elsewhere. Quite frankly, I think we have moved beyond that. The level of the sectarian debate and the level of acrimony in the whole operation will not be solved by coming up with these types of propositions . Essentially, we have to go back to the groundwork. We have to say that there is one criterion that everybody has to accept before we can have a reasonable conference, that is, that non-government schools are going to continue and so are government schools. Given that basic groundwork, we then have to get people together from non-government organisations, non-government parent organisations in schools, teachers' unions and a variety of other people, regardless of the pontificating which they all go on with in public. That is the type of situation that politicians know fairly well because it occurs all the time in our profession. One makes certain public commitments but, if one can get away from the glare of the media and get down to the basic items, one can often find, as the Senate finds in its committees, a great deal of common ground. Senator Teague —A low key education summit. Senator MACKLIN —Yes. We need an education summit, but we do not need an education summit like the National Economic Summit Conference. The last thing we need in education is any more grandstanding. We have had enough of it. Basically , those people have to get away from the media-with all due respect to the media -because the media pushes people into firm positions that they do not necessarily want to hold to in the ultimate. Every person going into that conference ought to say that they will not divulge outside the conference the workings of that conference, that there will be a communique agreed to at the end of the conference, and that will be it. The only things that should be included in that communique are those things on which the conference has agreed, no matter how few they are. All other matters should be put back into the melting pot to be dealt with at some time in the future. People would have the opportunity, at such a round table conference, to explore. I have floated a number of matters in this place for debate on a number of occasions. For example, a matter to be discussed could be the non-government schools giving away their right over the entrance and exit qualifications, so that they can no longer say: 'We will receive only these children with particular religious qualification or some other type of qualification. For that we are willing to do something else. Senator Peter Baume —That is almost on the road to an integrated system. Senator MACKLIN —Yes. I suggest an integrated system has worked in other countries. I am looking at the integrated system which is acceptable to the types of people which Senator Baume has been quoting in debate. In Scotland the Catholic bishops strongly support an integrated system; in New Zealand they do not; in Canada they do. There is a whole variety of systems. We cannot adopt, wholesale, an integrated system from another country, but we could establish our own. I think we could establish one which would finally put the lid on this absurd, stupid debate about the schools. We could only do it with goodwill and away from the Press. Only then could people explore the possibilities and the compromises that might be able to be entered into to see whether there could be some meeting of minds. I happen to believe-it might be a vain, optimistic hope- Senator Haines —A quixotic hope. Senator MACKLIN —It might even be quixotic, as Senator Haines said. I hope that the people who are engaged in the various educational groupings in this country ultimately are concerned about the kids. I make that statement; I do not necessarily know whether it is true, but I think one has to believe that it is true. If those people who are involved in education, whether it be at government or non-government schools, are really concerned about the education of children in this country, they will come to such a meeting, put their cards on the table, argue about the possible compromises and will be willing to give away things in that type of closed meeting that they could not possibly give away before their constituents. In that type of conference we may then get much further than we would by following the suggestions that Senator Teague has brought forward with all the goodwill in the world. We are happy to support Senator Teague because I believe that any proposal that has been well thought out and which has had as much work done on it as his ought to be given consideration. That is all that he has asked. I think the Senate could very well agree that we could give consideration to such a proposition. Senator ROBERTSON(Northern Territory)(4.44) —I welcome the opportunity to make a brief contribution to the debate introduced by Senator Teague. I make the point that it will be a brief contribution. I am conscious of the fact that ex- educators in this place tend to speak at some length, although the contribution they make is always valuable. Senator Teague and I share, with many others in this place, an interest in education. I am pleased that he mentioned, in the course of his speech, the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts report: 'Preparation for the workforce'. Like him I would like to give a little free publicity to that report, commend it to honourable senators and suggest that they and others study it. I will contribute a few thoughts in this debate rather than counter the arguments put forward by Senator Teague or those put forward by Senator Macklin. The reason for this will become obvious as my contribution proceeds. I make one minor criticism of Senator Teague's speech, if I may. It has already been mentioned by Senator Macklin. I was disappointed that he did not deal more fully , in the body of his remarks, with the respective roles of the Commonwealth and the States in education. No doubt he will make a contribution towards this end in a later debate, although other Opposition speakers may do so. I commend the contribution made by Senator Macklin because he touched on this aspect in the early part of his address. Senator Teague, in the first part of his proposal, was obviously concerned about misrepresentation by the opponents of non-government schools. It would have to be, of course, misrepresentation outside of parliament by groups or individuals. I notice that Senator Harradine identified one group that has made a number of comments about the system. No political party in recent years has opposed the funding of non-government schools. Some individuals may have done so in the course of debate and some may have done so out on the platform in the community. No party in this place or in the other place has opposed the funding of non-government schools. This does not mean, of course, that some individuals have not been critical of some of the non-government schools. We have to remind ourselves that there are many types of non-government schools, ranging across the spectrum, such as Aboriginal schools, minority religious schools, migrant schools, accelerated Christian education schools and so on. Within the community there are a large number of non-government schools. It is very difficult to generalise about them. Certainly we can talk about the funding of these schools. It is quite clear that, Senator Teague, in his contribution, was looking at the major non-government schools and was looking, basically, at Commonwealth funding because he was speaking about the decisions made by the Commonwealth Government. Let me briefly present the Government's position on the funding of non- government schools. Firstly, parents are free to select the schools of their choice. We all know that parents have a number of reasons for selecting non- government schools for their children to attend. I suppose the first one would be the traditional one of the children going back to the old school-the father attended a certain school and he wants his son to attend that school; or a mother attended a certain college and she wants her daughter to attend that college. Of course, there are religious grounds for people wanting their children to attend certain schools. They believe that an education should have a religious basis and that the education presented in the government schools does not have a sufficient religious base for them. Many adopt what I call the cynical approach and say that if one attends a certain school one is more likely to get a job in a particular area. It is not too many years ago that certain sections of the Public Service presented a greater opportunity, shall we say, to those people who wore a particular school tie. I will come back to that matter and develop the theme of the freedom of the parents to select their schools. The Government recognises also the high standards many schools achieve in a number of areas, certainly in academic achievement. Over the years many schools have developed a name for scholarship. They have won most of the bursaries for entry into universities. They have prepared their young people to enter the work force with a number of passes in matriculation or whatever examination happened to operate in a particular State. So many parents will say 'We will send our child there because we want him to have that better education', assessing education by the examination result. There is no doubt that some people chose a school for its sporting prowess. I suppose this was one of the basic reasons for choosing a school in the early days. People sent their children to a certain school because that school had developed a good team in a particular sport and the father wanted his son to continue in that sport. In the same way people sent their children to a particular school because of the attitudes that were developed there. In fact, when I went to university, education was defined as the changing of attitudes. One could debate that at some length, but the educators of that day saw that attitudes would need to change before education could take place. In the same way, I suppose, one could look at the moral and spiritual values of a school for attracting students to the school. The Government has made its decision about finance quite clear. Our funding of schools is based on a needs principle. There is nothing new about that. It has been in the Australian Labor Party's platform for years. It was introduced in 1972-75 and has been reintroduced under the present Labor regime. We make no apology for this. We believe that this is the correct approach, and I will develop this later on. Senator Teague and Senator Baume yesterday, in the course of the debate on the matter of public importance, made certain comments about the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) and criticised her for not attending a meeting in Albury. At that time they imputed improper motives for her not being there. I am not concerned about that at this stage but the address which she prepared for that meeting, which was a meeting of parents of children of independent schools, is relevant to the debate which we are having today. I will just read parts of it that relate to this debate. I start with the opening two paragraphs: Firstly, let me apologise for not being able to address you personally tonight. A prior commitment in another State has prevented this. The Chairman, however, has agreed to read the following statement on my behalf which sets out clearly the Commonwealth Government's policy on the funding of non-government schools. Non-government schools can be assured of continued support from the Commonwealth . In 1984 the Commonwealth is providing an overall increase of 1.5 per cent, in real terms, for non-government schools. These additional funds will be distributed within the non-government sector on the basis of need. Later paragraphs read: The funding policy of the previous Government was promoting the advantages held by a small number of schools at the expense of the majority of students in the majority of schools. The funding arrangements for 1984 give an extra $5 million to category three schools, in comparison with what they would have received under the automatic nexus formula. This is, I believe, a genuine act of redistribution of resources by a Government which is concerned to raise the standards of low resource use schools. For 1985, the Government wishes to consider the implementation of a new scheme for non-government school general resources funding. The Commonwealth Schools Commission has been asked to provide advice and options on a more comprehensive approach to the definition of 'need', the establishment of adequate general resource standards against which need may be measured and the categorisation of schools for Commonwealth funding purposes in a manner which provides for sufficient differentiation in relation to the varying needs and circumstances of schools. Non-government school authorities will be consulted as policy options are developed. They will have the opportunity to put forward any data or proposals which they feel need to be brought to the Government's attention. That is part of the address which Senator Susan Ryan prepared for that meeting in Albury. Perhaps I should develop the freedom of choice and diversity of schooling aspects which I mentioned earlier. I think it is fair to say that the substantial majority of Australian families send their children to the local government school. Often this is a matter of choice, sometimes it is an economic necessity and sometimes there is no other school. If government schools can be improved so that they offer a broader curriculum and more individual help and are more responsive to the wishes of parents, clearly the educational choices of the majority of Australians will be enhanced. If all schools can provide a sound educational base for all their pupils so that they can go on to choose further learning or be well equipped to look for employment, the choices of those pupils are greatly improved. The Government's participation and equity program is a significant contribution to enhancing the choices of many thousands of young people through offering them a richer curriculum and a better chance to gain work force skills through technical and further education. Similarly, the emphasis in the guidelines on improving the resources of the most needy schools in the non-government sector is a specific contribution to enabling those schools to offer a richer curriculum containing more learning choices for the children who attend them. These dimensions of the discussion about freedom of choice in education are frequently overlooked. The issue becomes narrowed so that its focus is exclusively on the rights of parents to choose a non- government school for their children. The non-government sector of schooling in Australia has provided an important expression of the diversity of the Australian society. It has offered a real choice to a large number of families seeking schooling for their children with a particular religious or other special character. The Government will continue to support the diversity of character of Australian schooling so that schooling can reflect the range of educational needs, beliefs and backgrounds in the Australian community. This support will reflect the Government's concern to ensure that resources are used effectively and the choices available to all are equitably considered. I would like to look now very briefly at non-government school funding. The point has been made that in the lead-up to the Budget there was insufficient time for the Government to consult widely with the non-government school community and other relevant authorities on the development of long term changes in funding policy. We are looking particularly here at two areas: First, a community standard of resources for schools; and secondly, a more comprehensive way of measuring the needs of schools against the community standard. The community standard is not the bare minimum but rather an agreed standard. One of the jobs which the Schools Commission has been given is to seek out the standard , to establish the standard and to use that as the basis. So it is clear that the Government has made a number of interim decisions for 1984 and asked the Commonwealth Schools Commission to consult widely with non-govenment schools and other authorities on the options for longer term funding policies beyond 1984. As we made clear in the debate yesterday, the Minister has also consulted with the national and State Catholic education commissions on the guidelines. A number of decisions have been made by the Government, and I think If I read these quickly from the notes which I have they will be in Hansard for those who have an interest in them. For 1984 the Government decided that additional funds amounting to $7.2m-I might indicate that that is a real increase of 1.3 per cent on 1983-would be provided for general recurrent grants for non-government schools. These additional funds would be provided on a needs basis. The Government decided that per capita grants for the 41 schools whose private income alone is 95 per cent or more of government schools standard costs should be reduced by 25 per cent in 1984 and the savings from this, some $4m, redirected to those in greater need. The grants for other schools in group 1- that is the highest resource category-would be maintained in real terms. Those for group 2 would be increased by one per cent in real terms and those for group 3-the most in need-by 3 per cent in real terms. These funding arrangements replace those of the previous Government under which increases in grants for all non-government schools were linked to increases in government schools costs each year, regardless of the fact that many low resource non-government schools had far greater needs than other high resource non-government schools. In fact, in recent years the gap between low resource non-government schools and government schools has widened. It is fair to indicate here that, had the previous Government's funding policy continued, the lowest resource non-government schools in group 3 would have received some $5m less than they will now receive in 1984. In addition to these changes the Government took the following funding decisions for 1984 which will benefit non-government schools: The 1983 level of capital grants was maintained in real terms, including the $9m provided in 1983 for new places. Within the total grants $4m will be provided for upgrading of schools serving disadvantaged communities and $2m for capital facilities in schools serving Aboriginal communities. It is rather interesting to note at this stage the attitude across the board-that is, not only in the education area but also in the Aboriginal affairs area-that went into making the decision about Yipiranya school, about which I spoke yesterday. The Government also took the decision on the provision of some $4.5m for non-government schools under the new participation and equity program and $1.2m under the new computer education program. Overall grants for non-government schools will increase by 1.5 per cent in real terms. There will be a reintroduction of retrospective cost supplementation, providing greater certainty for education planning, and a reactivation of the Curriculum Development Centre. This will benefit all schools. Let me conclude by saying that Senator Teague, in his motion, has sought consideration of a certain funding proposal which he has put forward. Let me assure him, as well as one can do on this side of the chamber without being the Minister, that this will be looked at. In fact, as he will know and as the shadow Minister will know, it has already been looked at by the Schools Commission and will be looked at again in both the government and the non- government areas. It is a proposition which, as Senator Macklin indicated, is worthy of being looked at. When the investigation has been carried out, quite clearly the Government will make a decision, which will be as all government decisions are made, within the parameters of our policy-a policy which I have taken a few minutes this afternoon to place on the record. Senator PETER BAUME(New South Wales)(5.00) —Mr Acting Deputy President, I ask for your indulgence for a moment. I think Senator Robertson indicated early in his speech the attitude that the Government would take to the motion. Was it that the Government would not oppose it? Senator Robertson —There is no opposition. Senator PETER BAUME —I thank the honourable senator for that. For my part, there is no need for me to speak at great length. But I do want to support my colleague, Senator Teague, for the motion that he has moved and for the arguments that he has advanced in support of that motion. I will deal with the second part of his motion first. I agree with Senator Robertson that the proposition that consideration should be given to this funding mechanism is one with which no one would want to disagree. Those of us who read the Commonwealth Schools Commission document which appeared in February of this year and which set out recommendations for 1984 will know that the Commonwealth Schools Commission went part of the way down the track that Senator Teague is proposing here today. It put some numbers into its proposition and made some suggestions as to what might be involved. I would like to see this kind of proposition and, as Senator Macklin said, other kinds of propositions which might give us the biggest range of options open to us examined to help us develop the best kind of education policies. There seems to be agreement right around the Senate that consideration should be given to paragraph (b) of the motion. I am grateful to my colleagues in the Senate that that is forthcoming. Of course, the first part of Senator Teague's motion was not about the policies of the former government or the policies of this Government. I do not intend to comment upon the policies which have been put forward-whether they are good and adequate or whether they are not. That is another issue. The first part of the motion asks us to accept as the view of the Senate that over some time: decisions of the Commonwealth Parliament concerning financial support for government and non-government schools . . . have been grossly misrepresented to the public by the opponents of non-government schools; Because that is a matter of demonstrable historical fact, I am delighted that honourable senators are disposed to support that part of the motion. When I was Minister for Education, I had the carriage of the defence of government policy. I had to receive and to respond to much of the misrepresentation to which Senator Teague refers in this motion. Very simply, if we have funding which has three components, a private component-a non-government component-a Commonwealth Government component and a State Government component, that is the totality of funding. For anyone then to base a public case and a public campaign solely on one of those three funding components is to misrepresent to that part of the community which is not aware of the totality of the situation what is occurring and to misrepresent to them where the balance of funding lies. Let me must say again that if one puts together the funding inputs which came from the Commonwealth and the funding inputs which came from the State, from those one derived the total public input into education. When one examined that particular cake of Commonwealth and State funding, a picture emerged which was very different from that which certain people would have us believe was the case in public campaigns which they ran, to the detriment of the Government of which I was a member. In my own State of New South Wales I had to watch television advertisements talking about 'the education cake'. The only trouble with those advertisements was that they were describing only part of the education cake and representing that part as the whole cake. The fact is that that was being done by the teachers federations for what were vested self- interest reasons. I attended public forums. I attended the Council of the Teacher Federations. I remember that I attended an election meeting in Bathurst at which the New South Wales Teachers Federation figured very prominently. That was just before the election. At each of those meetings the Federation officials , and speakers and the speakers in support of their position, concentrated only on one part of the funding and presented it as if it were the total funding. That Senator Teague's motion would seek to recognise what was occurring over several years and would seek to have that accepted as the view of the Senate is something which I believe would be to the benefit of the public argument and to future consideration of education funding. Finally, without necessarily endorsing the conclusions that Senator Macklin came to-without endorsing his particular prescription-I should like to indicate a general sympathy with the propositions he advanced about some of the problems in education in Australia today and the kind of analysis which he presented, which might help us go towards solutions. It is the kind of analysis which the Opposition is undertaking at the present time. I think there is much common ground between us. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia)(5.05) —in reply-I think that we have had constructive debate in the Senate. From the Opposition, from the Australian Democrats and from the Government, there is the same feeling that consideration does need to be given to presenting clearly to the public and to ourselves taxpayer support for education with Australia. We need to put together the various principles that we have debated over recent weeks. I thank Senator Harradine also for his support for the motion that has been moved and Senator Macklin, Senator Robertson and my colleague Senator Peter Baume. I am not wishing in this brief summary and response to the debate to claim that we have all got exactly the same views. I disagree with Senator Macklin's rejection that a basic grant should be able to be received by every child in Australia. At the same time, I am entirely sympathetic with the central emphasis upon a needs based formula for funding. Senator Peter Baume referred to the important matter of gaining equity and reason in the way in which we look at a school as one institution and look at a family within that school. I am entirely sympathetic with that suggestion. I welcome the decision of the Government which responds to the Commonwealth Schools Commission's statements, some of which I cited in my own remarks, and I welcome the decision of the Government, to which Senator Robertson has referred, that there is a review in process that will seek to bring a fresh and sound perspective to education funding in Australia. At one point, Senator Robert Ray interjected and asked whether this subject would not have been a useful reference to the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts. I acknowledge our personal conversations and that this is a concern that we expressed two years ago and one year ago. But at the time, even in this tolerant and at times enlightened Senate, it was not politically possible to take such a hot potato and carry it forward into a major public inquiry. In principle, I would still like to give that a go. I think Senator Giles, who was also involved in those discussions, would acknowledge that on personal grounds I would very much have liked the information and public input that such a Senate based national inquiry might have gained. I only hope that the inquiry that is now proceeding with the Schools Commission will lead to just as sound a result as we had hoped for in those informal discussions. In any event, I thank honourable senators for their expressions of support for the motion. I look forward to the time when we will have such a sound and clear perspective that the public will understand the way in which taxpayers are supporting both Government and non-government schools in Australia. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator MESSNER(South Australia)(5.10) —by leave-I move notice of motion No. 33 : That the Senate condemns the Government for the introduction of a discriminatory wine impost and notes that- (a) the 1983 Budget imposition of an excise on grape spirit used in fortifying wine places at risk the future of the fortified wine industry in Australia; (b) the requirement to pay the excise within 7 days of the fortification occurring is inequitable as returns to producers will not be received until the product is sold several years in the future; (c) the excise will be reflected in increased costs to consumers of fortified wines of up to 100 per cent; (d) producers of quality ports, sherries, muscats and other fortified wines will be encouraged either to withdraw from the market completely, thereby restricting consumer choice, or to reduce the maturation for such products, thereby reducing the quality; (e) this excise will increase the costs of production of fortified wines for export, further disadvantaging Australian producers on overseas markets; (f) the consequential reduction of fortified wine sales will be reflected in reduced intake of grapes from grapegrowers for these purposes, particularly from grapegrowers in the Riverland region of South Australia, the Leeton-Griffith district of New South Wales and the Sunraysia district in Victoria; (g) this will increase the hardship suffered by grapegrowers in these areas causing severe economic problems in decentralised regions; and it calls on the Government to either abolish this new impost or, at the very least, alter the payment of excise arrangements so as to only require payment when fortified wines are released for sale on the market. I also move notice of motion No. 35: That the Senate, noting that- (a) at a meeting of winemakers and grapegrowers in the McLaren Vale district during the 1983 Federal Election campaign, the then Australian Labor Party spokesman on Primary Industry stated: 'Industry will welcome Labor's pledge not to contemplate a wine tax'; (b) in its first Budget, the Hawke Australian Labor Party Government imposed a discriminatory tax on wine, namely, the introduction of an excise on grape spirit used in the production of fortified wines; and (c) in the House of Representatives on Thursday, 25 August 1983, the Labor Member for Kingston who was at the McLaren Vale meeting stated: 'I regard that promise as being completely honoured as a result of the Budget . . . I reject any implication that the Government has not honoured its obligations to the wine industry', condemns the Government for not keeping its promises and regrets that the Member for Kingston shows such lack of regard for, and understanding of, the wine industry. These two motions deal with questions connected with the grape spirit and wine industry. Both of them draw attention to the plight of the industry in South Australia. The second motion I have moved, of course, deals with certain promises that were given by the Government before the election and the subsequent breaking of those promises after the election. Most importantly, the first motion to which I would like to address my remarks touches on the difficulties in the industry that have arisen since the introduction of the wine spirit tax in the Budget on 23 August. The problems that are facing the industry in my State of South Australia-of course, these problems are being experienced also in the Sunraysia district of Victoria, in the Hunter River district in New South Wales but more particularly in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area-arise chiefly from the misunderstanding by the Government of its action in introducing this tax. In the Budget it announced a levy of $2.61 per litre of alcohol for spirit added to fortified wines or used in the blending and manufacture of such things as ports, sherries, muscats, liqueurs and, in some cases, brandy. The addition of that tax at that time in itself does not sound as though it involves an enormous amount of money. The problem that arises immediately is that within seven days from the point at which that spirit is blended in the making of ports or sherries the excise due to the Government must be paid, notwithstanding the fact that the product of grape spirit such as ports, sherries and so on, would take a considerable time to mature. It may be eight, ten or even fifteen years. It would be that long before the wine industry would see the recovery of the cash outlaid for the excise met at the very commencement of the production process. For that reason, the industry is suffering and will continue to suffer from severe cash flow problems in the future. The problem will not go away by virtue of the Government's announcement recently that it intends to reduce the rate of duty from $2.61 to $1.50. The action the Government took in September by making that statement clearly shows how it misunderstands the problems of the industry. The rate of duty is not the main complaint of the industry but rather the problem is financing that duty over such a long period until the product is matured and until it finally comes on to the market. As I pointed out, that might take eight, ten or fifteen years. Consequently, last night an Australian Broadcasting Corporation program Countrywide showed the plight of the Riverland grape growers already struck by problems of oversupply and changes in the market place brought about by government actions. They are going to be forced into bankruptcy as a result of this particular action. Already, as was evidenced in that program last night, many people have been forced to accept social security benefit payments merely to exist. The number of properties on the market in the Riverland area in South Australia are growing rapidly. The latest move made by the Government will only increase the trend and the difficulty of individuals recovering the asset value of their farms. For that reason, the Government must reconsider this tax. Clearly, it fails to understand the nature of the problem. One can see absolutely no sense in the Government imposing a levy of this kind and then on the other hand having to pay out social security benefits to people whose livelihood has been destroyed as a result of that action. It is that kind of nonsense in which this Government appears to revel and lacks the will to correct . I think we should remind ourselves of some of the election promises which were made before 5 March in this connection. During the campaign the Australian Labor Party was very keen, particularly in South Australia, to campaign on the basis that no wine tax would be introduced as a result of the election of a Labor Government. Mr John Kerin, the current Minister for Primary Industry, toured the wine growing areas of my State and categorically said time and again that the Government would not introduce a wine tax. At a meeting at McLaren Vale at the height of the election campaign he said: Industry will welcome Labor's pledge not to contemplate a wine tax. Labor not only contemplated it but also imposed it within its first six months in office. Obviously, however, while it contemplated imposing such a tax it did not give it a great deal of thought. That is the main issue in this particular question. If the Labor Party had thought about it in greater depth perhaps it would not have come up with such a discriminatory tax which was set in such a way as to be completely crippling in its effect. Mr Kerin was not the only one who spoke in these terms. In fact the now Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, gave this categoric assurance himself at Griffith in New South Wales on 20 February: Labor is pledged not to impose a sales tax or excise tax on wine. How can anybody ever believe that Prime Minister after that kind of statement and following the imposition of this tax in the Budget? One can only agree with the statement made clearly in an article from the Australian National University students' magazine: He lies and he knows he lies. It is that kind of statement we must fight in this country. We must make sure that this Government honours its promises. Already people who have an interest in this particular question have been making appropriate representations to the Government. Yet, the Government finds it very difficult to see the nature of the problem and to understand the depth of it. Clearly, Labor members do not understand the depth of the problem. Mr Bilney, the normally invisible member for Kingston in South Australia, has even ventured to try to explain away the excise. In a speech in the House a couple of weeks ago he said: The promise- he was referring to the promise given by Mr Kerin at McLaren Vale- was given . . . that there would be no sales or excise taxes on wine. He went on, incredibly, to say: I regard that promise as being completely honoured as a result of this Budget. Yet, an excise tax was imposed two days before Mr Bilney said that. In the course of his speech he also said: I do not believe that the electorate was misled. I believe that the promise that I associated myself with has been completely honoured. I reject any implication that the Government has not honoured its obligations to the wine industry. Of course the electorate was misled by Mr Kerin, Mr Hawke and Mr Bilney. That promise was not honoured. It is not simply an implication that the Government has not honoured its obligations to the industry. If in fact Mr Bilney really believes what he says it just shows the depth of his misunderstanding of the industry. It is also interesting to note that within a month of the Budget an article appeared in the Adelaide News, an afternoon newspaper, which indicated that Labor senators and members of the House of Representatives from South Australia had signed a letter to the Treasurer (Mr Keating) saying that the tax should be lifted. Yet, they had been going around for the previous few weeks trying to sell the people of South Australia the idea that this was in fact a good tax. It is amazing that even in this place when I tried to speak on this matter immediately after the Budget was introduced, a Labor senator from South Australia, Senator Crowley, refused me leave to address any remarks on this matter. What will be the effects of this particular tax on the industry? Let us look at the effects throughout my State. Obviously this will have a very regional impact , particularly in the Riverland, which, as I mentioned earlier, was the subject of a Countrywide program last night on television, which demonstrated the problems in that area already; and they will be exacerbated enormously by this tax. We can see straight away some of the effects. First, of course, there will be an increase in the retail price of the wine. Secondly, that will obviously allow more imports from cheaper producing countries to flow into Australia. There will clearly be lower sales, which means lower receivals of grapes will be taken in by wine growers in order to make the spirit. Obviously there will be changes in all areas of the wine industry as a result of that, because what will occur chiefly is that, whereas in times of surplus production of grapes wine makers would take in those grapes, process them and make them into spirit, and put that away for later use, that will now not happen and grape production must fall as a result, which can lead only to disaster for the grape grower himself. It is estimated that the loss of income in the Riverland and Sunraysia districts and in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area will cost the industry, and particularly the grape growers, about $25 1/2m in their income. No small owner of a small acreage block will be able to survive that kind of drop of income. Obviously, such people will be forced to the wall. That has been clearly demonstrated. Again I make the point: Where is the sense in imposing a tax of this kind, on the one hand, and then, on the other hand, forcing people to accept social security benefits in order to exist? It is an absurd proposition. But it is not even as though the Government has any clear view of the amount of revenue that will be produced as a result of its action. The Budget Papers led us to believe that the Government intended to raise only $6m. That would have taken into account a massive cut in the production of grape spirit. But subsequently the Treasurer refuted that figure and said that the excise would amount to $13 1/2m at the original rate of $2.61 a litre. But the South Australian Minister of Agriculture, Mr Blevins, said in the South Australian Parliament in September that the old excise rate-the $2.61 a litre rate-would have raised $13m in South Australia alone. This succession of fudges by the Treasurer is designed only to cover up a misunderstanding of the effects of this excise, and clearly the Government lacks the political will to correct a mistake which surely by now it must realise. I have acknowledged that the Government has reduced the rate of excise a litre from $2.61 to $1.50. But that fails to acknowledge the very important difference between the amount of duty paid and the effect on the cash flow of the grape growing industry over many years, up to maybe 15 years in the case of producers of good quality ports. That is the position in which we find ourselves today. We would hope, as South Australians, that the Government will change its view on this matter. We hope that it will reconsider the imposition of this tax. It has all the hallmarks of a hasty decision made to raise taxes irrespective of the impact on the wine industry, and it clearly demonstrates an ignorance of the industry and its operations. The tax was imposed despite clear, firm and public commitments on the part of the present Prime Minister and the Minister for Primary Industry. Apparently implicitly, at least at the start, it had the support of South Australian Labor senators and members of this Parliament. It has further been evidenced by Mr Bilney's insistence that no tax promise has been broken and that Labor's commitment to the industry has been met. The latest changes by the Treasurer indicate again a total lack of understanding of the problem, and the Government really deserves to be condemned for all its actions in this area. Senator ELSTOB(South Australia)(5.25) —We oppose Senator Messner's notice of motion. It is interesting to go back into the history of the wine industry in Australia, especially in South Australia. It was in 1970 that the Fraser Government introduced a tax on wine. At that time that brought the industry almost to its knees. In 1972, when the Whitlam Government was elected, the excise on wine was removed. There was also a tax on spirit, imposed before 1970, and in 1972 the excise on spirit was also removed. In 1978, the Fraser Government put a further impost on brandy. That brought the grape industry, especially in the Riverland, almost to its knees. I remember quite distinctly that Senator Baden Teague, in his maiden speech, said that he would never support a tax on the wine industry. However, if one looks up the records, one finds that he most certainly did so. He supported the tax on potable spirit, on brandy, at that time. Senator Messner has said that we have not kept our promises. We have not taxed wine. There is a reason for the tax on the spirit, which he knows full well. It came out of a recommendation by the Auditor-General . Senator Messner —That is a smear on the industry. Senator ELSTOB —It is not a smear at all. The avoidance possibilities flowed from the fact that there was a substantial gap between the excise-inclusive value of potable spirits, which attracted rates of excise ranging from $16.69 to $20.08 per litre of alcohol, and the value of excise-free 2J spirit-that is the spirit that is used to fortify wines-for fortifying wine, a little under $2 per litre of alcohol. That is used also to make up or extend potable liquor at a very real cost to Budget revenue. The Auditor-General, in a 1982 report on the efficiency audit on the excise collection, noted: In Audit's view, a major risk in this commodity area is the use of what need only be a small proportion of duty free production-be it alcohol produced by the major distilleries or spirit produced by wine fortifiers or vignerons-to extend or make up potable liquor of various kinds. Also, a spokesman for the potable spirits industry has recognised the potential for this substitution and has recommended that it be reduced by the imposition of a $2 per litre of alcohol excise on fortifying spirit. These recommendations were put to the previous Government and to this Goverment and, since the Budget, similar representations from spirits and brewing interests have been received urging the Goverment not to change its decision on this matter. Any government that did not take account of an Auditor-General's point of view such as that would be irresponsible. I also believe that the wine industry is a very fragile industry. We all understand that. The spirit industry, whether it is for spirit or for potable spirit which makes brandy, is made up of several specially grown grapes-genache and gordo and a few others that escape my memory. The industry was virtually destroyed when the excise on brandy was increased to such an extent that brandy was dearer than whisky. In these circumstances people just refuse to buy brandy. It is as simple as that. The industry was also being destroyed by an increased importation of cheap brandies. Our law insists that Australian brandy must be made from grapes. However, the cheap brandies that come into this country would never see a grape. They are distilled from grain. We just cannot compete against the imported product. I think that problem also has to be taken into consideration. The industry recommended to the Government that the rate of excise be reduced from $2.61. I might add that representations were also made by every South Australian Labor Party member and senator. We believed that the industry was being hit too hard, and we made no apology for that. As a result of representations from the industry and Labor politicians, the excise was reduced to $1.50 a litre. I believe that that is a substantial reduction. If it were not for people purchasing the cheaper product I doubt whether this reduction would have ever been made. I understand the wine industry in South Australia as well as anyone. I realise that it is a very fragile industry, no matter which government is in power. People must understand that changes cannot be made overnight. They must realise that changes have to be undertaken over a longer period-perhaps five years. It takes five years to adjust. I believe that the industry would be well advised to accept some form of tax such as a sales tax. Eventually the industry will be taxed. The previous Liberal Government as well as this Labor Government have been subject to a lot of pressure from brewers and people in the industry. However, the industry will not be able to avoid paying some form of duty in the future. I believe that it would be in the interests of governments of any political pursuasion and the wine industry as a whole to get together and to agree to a sensible form of taxation. I do not believe that it is of any use an industry coming along to any government and saying: 'We do not want to be taxed. No tax is available'. That is the difficulty. Honourable senators on this side of the chamber refute that the Government did not honour its promises. It did. We simply took into account the recommendations of the Auditor-General. As I said, it would be a very foolish and irresponsible government that did not take that into account. We have to gain revenue. I believe that we have not hurt the industry. This measure will add only a few cents to the cost of a bottle of fortified wine. As I said, it will not hurt the industry at all. The PRESIDENT —Order! The time allotted under the sessional order for the consideration of General Business having expired, the Senate will proceed to the consideration of other business. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia) —by leave-I claim to have been misrepresented. I wish to make a personal explanation. My friend and colleague from South Australia, Senator Elstob, referred in the remarks he made a moment ago to the strong protest I made in my first speech in the Senate about the imposition of a brandy tax. It is true that I protested most strongly on the behalf of the Riverland and other grape growing areas of South Australia. I did not make the exact statement that he cited that I would never support a tax upon wine. The words in my maiden speech in September 1978 would indicate that. I am glad that he has the impression that I am a vigilant and strong supporter of the grape growers and wine producers in my State of South Australia. Senator ZAKHAROV(Victoria) —by leave-I wish to make a brief personal explanation. In yesterday's Hansard of 19 October my name is incorrectly recorded as a negative vote on the second reading of the Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Amendment Bill 1983. My constituents might not consider it such a joke; they might take it seriously. I have checked the Senate record and the mistake was made either in the Hansard report or by the printer. I ask that the correction be made before the weekly Hansard is printed. The PRESIDENT —That correction will be made to the Hansard. Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendment made by the Senate to this Bill. The following Bills were returned from the House of Representatives without amendment: Copyright Amendment Bill 1983. Archives Bill 1983. Bill returned from the House of Representatives with amendments. Ordered that the House of Representatives amendments be considered in Committee of the Whole forthwith. House of Representatives amendments- No. 1-Clause 27, page 14, lines 15 and 16, omit '', not being a decision made under sections 33 and 33A of this Act'', substitute ''(not being a decision made by a Minister)''. No. 2-Clause 27, page 14, at the end of proposed section 52F add the following sub-section: ''(3) Notwithstanding anything in this Part, the reference in sub-section (1) to a decision made by a Minister shall not be taken to include a reference to a decision made by a person in the exercise of a power delegated by a Minister.''. No. 3-Clause 30, page 15, omit the clause, substitute the following clause: Applications to Administrative Appeals Tribunal ''30. Section 55 of the Principal Act is amended- (a) by omitting from paragraph (3) (b) 'he made that application' and substituting 'that application was received by or on behalf of the agency concerned'; and (b) by omitting from paragraph (4) (c) '57 (4)' and substituting '52B (3)'. No. 4-After clause 31, page 15, insert the following new clause: Repeal of section 57 ''31A. Section 57 of the Principal Act is repealed.''. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(5.39) —I move: That the amendments made by the House of Representatives be agreed to. I might briefly for the record describe what is involved. The Government in the House of Representatives successfully moved four amendments to the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill during its passage in that chamber today. The amendments are necessary to clarify the scope of the Ombudsman's new power to represent, or to arrange representation for, applicants before the Amdministrative Appeals Tribunal. The amendments are consistent with the intention of the Committee of the Whole in agreeing to, on the motion of Senator Missen and rather against the inclination of the Government, the insertion of a new part 5A in the Act to expand the role of the Ombudsman. Amendment (1) is to clause 27 of the Bill. It constitutes new section 52E of the parent Act. It makes clear that the Ombudsman cannot represent an applicant where the decision under review by the AAT is a decision of a Minister. The amendment is consistent with the exclusion of ministerial action from the Ombudsman's ordinary complaint receipt and investigation jurisdictions. The second amendment is also to clause 27 of the Bill, new section 52E. It makes clear that the Ombudsman is not excluded from representing an applicant where the decision under review by the Adminstration Appeals Tribunal was made by a person in the exercise of a power delegated by a Minister. Amendments (3) and (4) amend clause 30 of the Bill and insert a new clause 31A in the Bill respectively. These are consequential upon the insertion of new Part VA in the Act, which expands the role of the Ombudsman. They repeal section 57 of the parent Act an accordingly delete all references in that section to the Ombudsman and all references to that section elsewhere in the Act. I will say one other thing while I am on my feet in relation to a proposed amendment from Senator Haines which I indicated that the Government would give further consideration to in the Bill's passage across King's Hall. In the Senate , Senator Haines moved an amendment to clause 4 of the Amendment Bill proposing a new section 72A that would confine the extension for documents from intelligence organisations to documents that are 'relevant to the work of such organisations'. I gave an undertaking to give further consideration to that proposal before the Bill appeared in the House of Representatives. There are adequate checks and balances in the system to ensure that the provision as it stands is not misused. On consideration of Senator Haines's amendment, the Government takes the view that it would not be appropriate to amend the Bill in the manner she suggests. Appropriate administrative directions, can be given, however, and will be given. At the moment I am drafting letters to send to Ministers accordingly. As I understand it, that is consistent with the spirit of Senator Haines's proposal and certainly acceptable to her. With those short remarks, Mr Chairman, I commend the amendments to the chamber. Senator DURACK(Western Australia)(5.42) —The Opposition is, of course, in support of the amendments that have been moved by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). The Opposition is pleased that the Government accepted the primary amendments-to which these are simply a tidying up-which were moved by Senator Missen in this chamber in the Committee stage of the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill and which were supported by the Opposition. This is a very interesting and certainly experimental extension of the role of the Ombudsman in several respects, but in particular in his role of counsel, to use a general term. As I said, we wish to express our satisfaction that the Government has accepted this amendment, because although it was passed by the Senate some real doubt was expressed by the Attorney-General as to how far the Government would be able to accept it. It is a pleasing result all round and I trust that this legislation will now be passed without any further delay. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Motion (by Senator Button) proposed: That the Senate- (a) notes that Ministers have provided statements of their private interests, and those of their families of which they are aware, and that copies of those returns have been presented to the Parliament as a matter of public record; (b) is of the opinion that all Senators should provide similar statements of their private interests, including those of their families of which they are aware, covering the following matters: (i) shareholdings in public and private companies (including holding companies) indicating the name of the company or companies, (ii) family and business trusts and nominee companies- (a) in which a beneficial interest is held, indicating the name of the trust, the nature of its operation and beneficial interest; and (b) in which the person or immediate family is a trustee, indicating the name of the trust, the nature of its operation and the beneficiary of the trust, (iii) real estate, indicating the location (suburb or area only) and the purpose for which it is owned, (iv) directorships in private companies, indicating the name of the company, its activities and the total amounts of its assets and liabilities, (v) partnerships, indicating the nature of the interest, the activities of the partnership and the total amounts of its assets and liabilities, (vi) liabilities (excluding short-term credit arrangements) indicating the nature of the liability and the creditor concerned, (vii) the nature of any bonds, debentures and like investments, (viii) saving or investment accounts, indicating their nature and the name of the bank or other institutions concerned, (ix) the nature of any other assets (including collections, but excluding household and personal effects) each valued at over $5000, (x) the nature of any other substantial sources of income, (xi) gifts valued at more than $250 received from official sources, or at more than $100 where received from other than official sources, (xii) any sponsored travel or hospitality received, and (xiii) any other interests, such as membership of organisations, where a conflict of interests with a Senator's public duties could foreseeably arise or be seen to arise; (c) agrees that a public register of Senators' statements of their private interests referred to in paragraph (b) should be established; (d) agrees that Senators should provide such statements on an annual basis and that amended statements should be provided if alterations in circumstances occur ; (e) agrees that notwithstanding the lodgement of statements by Senators and their incorporation in a public register individual Senators should declare any relevant interest if they participate in a debate in the Senate or vote in a division in the Senate; and (f) requests the Standing Orders Committee to consider and report upon: (i) what changes to the Standing Orders may be required to give effect to the matters contained in paragraphs (b) to (e), and (ii) the desirability of adopting other provisions relating to Members of Parliament contained in the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Public Duty and Private Interest (except constitutional matters, but including, in particular, a Code of Conduct). Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(5.45) —This motion was put before the Senate originally some weeks ago, I think on 5 October, by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button). At the same time he made a statement on the motion and on certain actions which were being taken by the Government relating to the disclosure of interest by Ministers. This is a very important matter for the Senate and for this Parliament. I suppose that it would be possible to debate it in the rather heated terms which have been used in both the House of Representatives and in this place over recent days and weeks on matters of the particular interests of senators and members. But I think that would not be appropriate or constructive. I think it is important that the Senate examine with very great care the propositions which are being put before it by the Government in this motion and endeavour to find some common ground on how we ought to deal with the matters which are raised by the motion. The Government, in moving the motion and in tabling certain papers, made some very large claims. I believe the Government said, for example, that never before in the history of this Parliament have Ministers disclosed publicly the private interests which they hold. I think it is true that in the past the systems of disclosure which have been required have been systems of disclosure to the Prime Minister of the day. They have not been matters which have been put before the public. The rationale for what the Government is doing is set out early in the statement made by Senator Button. He said: The public-the electors of this country-are entitled to have confidence in the integrity of their elected representatives; to know that Ministers of the Government will perform their duties without fear or favour; to be reassured that a Minister's private interests-whatever they may be-do not conflict with his or her public duties in holding the high office of a Minister in the Federal Government. I think that we would all agree with that statement. It is, therefore, a matter of debating not that objective but the appropriate means which should be adopted by this Parliament to contribute to that worthy objective. The Opposition has reservations about the particular course which the Government has followed. There was an earlier debate in the other place on the matters raised by the motion. I would like briefly to refer to some comments that were made by Mr Sinclair, who led for the Opposition in the House of Representatives. He said: The Opposition supports the desirability of a way to meaningful disclosure of areas of possible conflict of interests by members of this House. He went on, however, to point out that we cannot prescribe propriety. He said: The consequences of public disclosure inevitably are that the dishonest will take steps to make sure that they are not caught out. The honest will reveal their hand and leave their families and themselves subject to the intrusion on their privacy of which the erratic and politically eccentic, regrettably, of our community are capable. He went on to say: The Opposition welcomes the concept of this motion and the opportunity to debate it. But in our view it is totally inadequate for the purpose. Senator Chipp —Who said that? Senator CHANEY —That was Mr Sinclair in the House of Representatives. I would like in the time that I have to give some indication of why the Opposition has some reservations and to support the alternative course which the Opposition will put before the Senate in the form of the amendment which has been circulated in the chamber. We suggest to the Government that the better course would be to refer the issues raised by the motion to the Standing Orders Committee for consideration and report, prior to final decisions being taken by the Senate as to what courses of action should be required of senators. Indeed, the statement which was originally put down by the Leader of the Government in the Senate suggested that, with respect to some of the issues at least, that was the course that the Government proposed. On page 8 of the original typescript of the statement by Senator Button he said: One question is whether the registration system should be compulsory or voluntary. If the Senate ultimately decides upon the latter and a senator refuses to provide a statement I am sure that people-especially the electors concerned-will be able to make their own judgment about that particular senator. Prior to that he said: The Committee-- that is the Standing Orders Committee- will also be asked to look at the other recommendations of the Bowen Report ( apart from those relating to the Constitution) affecting senators and members. I shall be presenting a notice of motion today giving further details and proposing referral to the Standing Orders Committee for consideration and report . What we have in fact is a resolution which does not really refer these matters to the Standing Orders Committee for consideration and report; rather, it refers the matters to the Standing Orders Committee so that that Committee can consider and report upon, to quote from Senator Button's motion, 'what changes to the Standing Orders may be required to give effect to the matters'-matters contained in the earlier paragraphs of the resolution. So we have, effectively, not consideration of the issues by the Standing Orders Committee but simply consideration of the mechanics whereby those objectives are meant to be adopted by the Senate without further discussion or consideration. I believe that is not the right way to be going about it. In fact, Senator Sir John Carrick raised that issue with Senator Button at Question Time on 11 October. He asked whether it was the intention of the Government that the Standing Orders Committee should report on the question of compulsory or voluntary registration and that the report be debated before any decision is made. Senator Button, a week or so ago, said to the Senate: I do not recall the precise details of the statement-- He went on to say: But, as I recall, it is the intention of the Government that in respect of non- Ministers who are members of the Parliament the question which Senator Sir John Carrick quoted as one which should be addressed to the Standing Orders Committee should be addressed to the Standing Orders Committee and that consequent upon consideration of that matter by the Committee it would then be debated again in the Parliament. The answer is slightly equivocal-- Senator Button —Meaningless one might say. Senator CHANEY —It may be meaningless but it does suggest that these issues shall be given Standing Orders Committee consideration and then debated in the Parliament. It is the objective of the Opposition, in moving the amendment to which I previously referred, that the Standing Orders Committee should consider and report upon these matters before the Senate finally determines its view and makes it known. Mr President, I will move the amendment circulated in my name. It leaves out all paragraphs from (b) to (f) and inserts substitute paragraphs which substantially correspond with the Government's motion but which in all cases permit further consideration of the more fundamental issues to be in the hands of the Standing Orders Committee, report back to the Senate and then, of course, an opportunity for us to determine the final position. I move: Leave out paragraphs (b) to (f), insert the following paragraph: 'and (b) requests the Standing Orders Committee to consider and report upon- (i) whether all Senators should provide similar statements of their private interests, including those of their immediate families of which they are aware, covering the following matters: (A) shareholdings in public and private companies (including holding companies) indicating the name of the company or companies; (B) family and business trusts and nominee companies- (I) in which a beneficial interest is held, indicating the name of the trust, the nature of its operation and beneficial interest, and (II) in which the person or immediate family is a trustee, indicating the name of the trust, the nature of its operation and the beneficiary of the trust; (C) real estate, indicating the location (suburb or area only) and the purpose for which it is owned; (D) directorship in private companies, indicating the name of the company, its activities and the total amounts of its assets and liabilities; (E) partnerships, indicating the nature of the interest, the activities of the partnership and the total amounts of its assets and liabilities; (F) liabilities (excluding short-term credit arrangements) indicating the nature of the liability and the creditor concerned; (G) the nature of any bonds, debentures and like investments; (H) saving or investment accounts, indicating their nature and the name of the bank or other institutions concerned; (J) the nature of any other assets (including collections, but excluding household and personal effects) each valued at over $5,000; (K) the nature of any other substantial sources of income; (L) gifts valued at more than $250 received from official sources, or at more than $100 where received from other than official sources; (M) any sponsored travel or substantial hospitality received; and (N) any other interests, such as membership of organisations, where a conflict of interest with a Senator's public duties could foreseeably arise or be seen to arise, (ii) whether a public register of Senators' statements of their private interests referred to in sub-paragraph (i) should be established and whether there should be a private register held by the President, (iii) whether the provision of material by a Senator to the register should be on a compulsory or voluntary basis, (iv) whether Senators should provide such statements on an annual basis and whether amended statements should be provided if alterations in circumstances occur, (v) whether, notwithstanding the lodgement of statements by Senators and their incorporation in a public register, individual Senators should declare any relevant interest if they participate in a debate in the Senate or vote in a division in the Senate and if so what might constitute a relevant interest and in what way should it be declared, (vi) what changes to the Standing Orders may be required to give effect to the matters contained in sub-paragraphs (i) to (v) of this paragraph; and (vii) the desirability of adopting other provisions relating to Senators and Members contained in the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Public Duty and Private Interest (except constitutional matters, but including, in particular, a Code of Conduct).'. I earlier quoted the objectives that the Government set for itself in tabling the statements of the Ministers and in moving this motion. But I believe there have to be very severe doubts that the proposals which are before us actually meet the objective set. What has been exposed by the Government in the motion, in the statement of the procedures which have been followed by Ministers and in the papers which have been tabled raises questions rather than provides the answers which are sought. I refer to just some of what I see as the deficiencies in the arrangements which the Government is suggesting should apply. One of the deficiencies is that under the disclosure provisions which the Government is urging upon us, a man with $1 will be seen in exactly the same light as a man with $1m. I suggest to the Senate that the public perception would be that a person with $1 in a bank account is in a very different position from a person with $1m in a bank account . Yet, under the exposure provisions which the Government has implemented with respect to its Ministers, under the provisions which it believes must apply to senators and members, there is no distinction between the man with $1 and a man with $1m. Under these provisions there are real doubts about the extent of disclosure by spouses. We find that the Government quite reasonably says that people should disclose. Ministers have provided statements of their interests and of those of their families of which they are aware, but of course that leaves a very large hole. How much are Ministers aware of; how much are they unaware of; and what are the various attitudes of their spouses to disclosure? It is on the public record that some wives of Ministers regard this as an affront to their privacy and something to which they should not be subjected. There is a real issue of principle here, as well as practicality, as to whether what is proposed by the Government is effective with respect to families and spouses. There is no attempt to expose the quantum of debts. I would have thought that one of the most critical things which might determine whether a Minister is likely to be subject to improper pressure is the extent to which he is in debt. Certainly the fact of certain debts is exposed in the register but the quantum of debts is not exposed and we have the very odd situation that a Minister who is perhaps indebted to the tune of 30 per cent of his asset value appears in exactly the same light as a Minister who is indebted to the extent of 200 per cent of his asset value. There is no comparison between the risk situation involved and the sort of judgment which might be taken. I would have thought that the degree of indebtedness when compared with one's worth is, if any of these things matter, a significant indicator of risk. I suggest to you, Mr President, that the provisions relating to companies are quite inadequate. The Government has tried to come to grips with some of the recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry into Public Duty and Private Interest of July 1979. Some attempt has been made to get behind the company veil . I refer to the form which the Government is using for the returns which Ministers have lodged. I will turn to Senator Button's return because he has a nil return in this particular part. I have no wish to raise the situation of any particular Minister. Let us look at Senator Button's return. We have a requirement that shareholdings in companies should be exposed. Where there is a beneficial interest held in shares of a private holding company, the name of the holding company and the owner of the shares, and the names of the companies in which the holding company has shares will be disclosed. So the Government has made some attempt to pursue that line. Senator Button might remember that we asked him some questions about this. But there is no requirement for other interests of companies to be exposed. There is no requirement for the sort of interests which are required of Ministers personally in terms of their investments, their other assets, their other substantial sources of income, the partnerships of which they are members and the liabilities which they might have. None of those things are required to be exposed. It does seem to me that the Government has lifted just one tiny corner of the corporate veil with respect to ministerial disclosure and has ignored other possible very substantial areas. Senator Button —If I might interrupt, while you are on this point you might help us by telling us what a nominee company is in that form, if you have any views on it. Senator CHANEY —That is just one of the many hundreds of questions that I think can be, without rancour, asked about what is being put down. I appreciate the interjection from the Leader of the Government because I think it does advance further the point I am trying to make. I turn to a few personal matters which are not required to be disclosed but which I believe genuinely go to the extent to which there is a risk of ministerial or other impropriety. From my experience in the criminal law-I am sure all honourable senators will be pleased to know that I have experience in that area as well as in tax-- Senator Button —As a lawyer. Senator CHANEY —From my experience in criminal law, as a lawyer, one of the high risk elements that appear in the cases of those employees who are charged with stealing as a servant is that they are gamblers and they go in over their heads. That is a very common sort of situation. Is a man a gambler on a large scale? Quite frankly, I suspect that that is a much more significant question to ask if we are concerned about possible corruption than the question of whether a Minister owns a house, a car or has a mortgage on his house. The question of a man's religion might be relevant. A great deal of the issues debated in this place contain elements which give rise to questions of religious concern- prejudice, if you like. Support for church schools is a case in point. I support them because I support that system. No doubt that is something which is related to the particular religion that I profess. That is not required to be exposed. I note there was some reference to that in the House of Representatives by Dr Klugman. Senator Button —And a man's sexuality, too, in certain cases. Senator CHANEY —Certainly a man's sexuality might be raised. After all, look at Burgess, Maclean, most recently the late Mr Blunt, and all those matters and the arguments that run from them. The situation concerning de factos has been raised in Question Time, too. We have before us the suggestion that the parliamentary superannuation system should be extended to cover the situation of de factos. If we are to superannuate de factos, presumably we will also expose their interests under this declaration. There seems to me to be some doubt there. I refer to the question of current accounts. Short term debts are not required to be disclosed. After a very quick flick through this register, I think that the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Walsh, is the only person who has indicated-I speak from memory-the fact that he has a current account. I am sure that all Ministers have current accounts. It does seem to me to be odd that bank accounts of one sort are relevant and bank accounts of another are not. I refer to the existence of insurance policies. Again, I think that only one Minister disclosed that he has insured his life. If I were a Minister in the present Government I would want my life to be insured for a very high amount. There appears to be only one element of disclosure. I do not suggest moral turpitude, but that is an important element of some people's assets. Insurance companies are among the major investors in Australia. A whole series of questions can be raised. By way of interjection, the Leader of the Government queried certain elements as to what was meant by the expression, I think, 'nominee companies'. It is quite clear that there is a great deal of doubt in the minds of Ministers about what is meant by the requirements that the Government has laid down. I do not want to labour the point, but all honourable senators would be familiar with the fact that there have been 10 amendments to the original declarations. A series of Ministers-I think nine Ministers-have managed to put together 10 corrections in these early days. Again, I do not try to score a point at the expense of the Ministers concerned. All I suggest is that the requirements are rather vague. If it is difficult for Ministers to know what is required of them, I suggest that there is something wrong with this set of rules. There has been some caustic comment that for a Minister to not know that his wife is earning $53,000 a year is a rather extraordinary omission. I do adopt that as a view. I wish that my wife earned $53,000 a year. I would be horrified to think that if she were earning it I would be unaware of it. One could go on multiplying those examples. Senator Button —Can you point to the question that elucidates that answer? Senator Gareth Evans —It was very clear. Senator CHANEY —That may be very clear. I am grateful for the sotto voce interjection by the Attorney-General. It is clear that it was overlooked. If I am to stand here in an attempt to achieve some agreement in the chamber, I do not wish to raise accusations; I simply want to raise the fact that this is obviously something of a defective system as far as Ministers are concerned in the extent to which it has operated so far. The fact is that there are many difficulties and faults. The fact is that they all need working through. I believe we should adopt the course of allowing an all-party group-I am quite happy for it to be the Standing Orders Committee-to look at these propositions and to come back to us with some, I would hope, agreed solutions to some of these problems. The Government has suggested that, after all, the gentlemen of the Press Gallery ought also to be involved in this matter, but it says: 'Let the Press Gallery come to us with suggestions'. I think it would be appropriate for the Government to say to the Senate: 'Let the Senate come to us with suggestions as to how those objectives can be met'. This is not a matter of mere partisan concern, particularly in the context of the current period of sittings. It is fairly difficult to debate this matter because there is so much accusation and counter-accusation flying around the Parliament. Any objections which are raised with regard to the immediate passage or the passage of the Government's proposal are likely to be greeted by cries of : 'Liberals and Nationals have got something to hide'. That is not the case. I have no concern about my personal affairs which I can think of. I refer to some of the objections which were raised by a Labor member of Parliament when the matter came on for debate in the House of Representatives. That speech, which Dr Klugman made in the House of Representatives on 5 October, commences at page 1390 of Hansard and touches on a whole series of points. I do not have time to deal with them all. Dr Klugman pointed out some of the deficiencies in what is being proposed. He said it was depressing that one-third of the Ministers had to correct within a fortnight the statements which they gave. He said it was depressing that a Minister did not know that his wife's income was $53,000. That was considered to be a substantial source of income. He pointed out that perhaps the Government was asking that members of the House of Representatives and senators to provide a similar statement. He said that we certainly would not want similar statements to those which have been submitted by Ministers; we would like something which was a little more accurate in the first instance. Dr Klugman also pointed out that almost everything we do in this place involves a conflict of interest. Last week the Senate passed a Bill which lifted the wages pause. Nobody in this place acknowledged the fact-I may have referred to it in a speech-that that legislation lifted the freeze on the salaries of members of parliament. It permitted the Remuneration Tribunal to go back to work to look at increases for members of parliament. I am not suggesting that there is anything improper in that. It is just one of a thousand examples of how almost everything we do affects us as well as the general populace. If we adjust the tax laws and do something about the marginal rate of tax for people earning more than $30,000 a year, do we all stand up, one at a time, and indicate that we are all affected by it? There is this sort of endless stream of examples. I think it would be very helpful if honourable senators sat down and worked out just what sorts of conflicts of interests we were concerned about, which ones have to be taken into account and which ones have to be accepted as simply part of the fact that we are all part of the Australian community and are affected by every action of this Parliament. I turn to the amendment which is proposed by the Opposition. I wish to explain the differences which exist between what we propose and what the Government proposes and also make some queries about what is in the proposal itself. What the Opposition is proposing is not that there should be rejection of what the Government is putting forward, but rather that the Standing Orders Committee should consider and report upon the matters which are being put forward. That is the fundamental difference. Senator Chipp —Or some other all-party committee. Senator CHANEY —I have no particular concern about whether it is the Standing Orders Committee. Some all-party group should report back to us on these matters . It should report back, for example, on whether all honourable senators should provide statements of their private interests which are similar to those provided by Ministers, including those of their immediate family, of which they are aware. In our amendment we suggest that we should report on whether there should be a public register or whether the register should be private. I would have thought that was a matter which could clearly involve differences of opinion and was one on which we ought to try to develop some common view. There is a difference in our proposal, because we are asking that a committee consider whether the register should be compulsory or voluntary. We are asking for a much more careful approach to the question of declaration of interests. I suggest that the sort of remark that is contained in the Government's statement really inadequately embraces the very real difficulties that exist with respect to the declaration of interests. Anyone who has had experience in local government would know how fraught with difficulty the provisions of the local government Acts are with respect to declarations. With the greatest good will in the world one can foul up or just not follow correct procedures because of the complexity of situations that arise. Let us remember the situation concerning former Senator Webster and the difficulty of applying the constitutional provisions to him which ultimately had to be determined in the High Court of Australia. In that case there was no malice; there was nothing hidden. There was just a great complexity of rules. Senator Walsh —Just a crook judgment by Barwick. Senator CHANEY —I will try to maintain the same even stance throughout the rest of the debate. That was a very good example of how there was something which was not hidden, something which had been going on, and there was a very technical question as to what the individual's position was under a conflict-type provision. What we are seeking is some consideration by an all-party committee on what might constitute a relevant interest and in what way it should be declared. I have already given some examples of why I think there are difficulties there. Does a person with children who are attending a private school declare an interest each time we debate education? Does somebody who has a company declare an interest every time we deal with anything that has to do with companies legislation, company taxation matters and so on? The list is endless. I would hope that after consideration the Government would be prepared to allow that sort of consideration of this proposal, as is suggested in the Opposition's amendment. Let me make it quite clear that we will put the amendment. If the amendment fails we will not divide on the motion itself. We would not wish to be seen as opposing and we would not wish to be opposed to the principle of disclosure and the principle that we should not act in an area where there is conflict of interest. We are suggesting very seriously to the Government and the Senate that these matters need much more careful consideration. I raise some of the points which I think need more careful consideration. What is the requirement in sub-paragraph (d) that private companies should indicate the total amount of assets and liabilities? I understood that amounts would not be required. That is what the statement says. The statements of Ministers' pecuniary interests indicate that amounts are not being shown. Yet the statement suggests that the total amount of assets and liabilities should be shown. I think that needs to be examined. I think the exclusion of short term credit arrangements and current accounts needs to be considered. Why is one form of bank account required to be disclosed and another form not? Why is life insurance omitted from the list of things which should be disclosed, given the key role of life insurance companies in investment in Australia? Why should gifts of more than $100 received from other than official sources be disclosed in all cases? I confess to the Senate, Mr President, that on my fortieth birthday my wife bought me a watch which cost in excess of $100. I say that is nobody's business but my own. I have now told the Senate. But I suggest there are endless examples of gifts which it is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that we put on to a register. Whilst I accept that there is a validity in seeking the disclosure of some forms of gifts, should we not look a little more closely at whether that is a sensible provision? Do we really believe that any hospitality or substantial hospitality should be exposed? Does one have to enter it into the register each time one has a lunch which one does not pay for, whether it is with a trade union or whatever interest group? That sort of question really needs to be considered if we are to get a sensible answer. I could go on. I simply wish to put to the Senate that there are a whole series of matters which need to be considered more carefully. I think there are real doubts about the effectiveness of the Government's proposal. I think it is ineffective. I think real dishonesty can easily be hidden away. I think there are elements of farce in what we have before us. I find it utterly ludicrous that $1 can be the same as $1m in terms of a register. I suggest that the question needs to be raised: What are the sorts of interests that are most critical? Is the owning of a house in Australia something that is likely to be significant? On the other hand, is something which is not required to be exposed significant? I pick an instance from the recent past. A senior politician had over $4,000 in cash on him in various currencies. I think that most impartial observers would say that, if we are looking at the question of what is likely to indicate a problem, carrying large amounts of cash was more significant than having a house in the suburbs. I think that this effort which may be, on the part of the Government, an utterly genuine attempt to come to grips with what is seen by some as a significant problem ought not to be allowed to founder by having it thrust down the throat of the Senate when there are significant questions which need to be answered and where, I think, there really would be great value in more sober consideration on an all party basis and a debate which could follow that sober consideration. I commend the amendment to the Senate. I hope the Government will use the period of delay which it is prepared to permit in this matter-we have had it before us for many weeks-to constructive effect by seeing it sent off to a committee for further consideration. I think to fail to do so would be not to display the qualities which the Government claims for itself. I trust therefore that on this occasion the Government will have a second thought. Senator CHIPP(Victoria-Leader of the Australian Democrats)(6.15) —The Australian Democrats support the concept and thrust of the move by the Government. But, at the same time, we agree with everything that Senator Chaney said. I regret that Senator Button, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, is otherwise engaged at the moment. We hope that the Government will sympathetically receive the request from Senator Chaney and the Opposition because it makes so much sense. As Senator Chaney has conceded, all wisdom does not reside in the Senate Standing Orders Committee. But I think the thrust of the Opposition's amendment is that the matter should go to an all party committee to iron out some of the anomalies and some of the requirements in the Government's motion which, to quote Senator Chaney, border on being farcical. However, because of the reason so delicately mentioned by Senator Chaney that we are living in times when accusations and counter-accusations are flung around about members' assets, one dares not take any sort of move that would allow some mischievous person, whether he be in politics or in the media, to say: 'Ha, the Liberals or the Nationals or the Democrats are trying to hide something'. The Democrats, whilst supporting the thrust of what the Liberal Party is doing and commending it for that action, will support the Government if this matter is taken to a division. We plead with the Government to look carefully at what Senator Chaney and the Opposition said. I will not repeat what Senator Chaney said because there is no point in doing so. But although we support the concept of what the Government is doing, we note that the provisions of the motion do not, by and large, demand that amounts of money be disclosed. What is the point of being forced or requested to disclose the value of a house if no money amounts are involved? The house could be, to use Melbourne as an example, in a slum area in Fitzroy and worth $20,000 or it could be in the heart of Toorak and be worth $1m. But there is no requirement for the disclosure of value. We note that spouses have been included in the motion. A reason could be made out for including the assets of a spouse. On the other hand, this impinges, very dramatically, on the notion of an individual's rights. Does not the spouse of a senator or a member of parliament have the right to have her or his assets and income remain private? Indeed, as Senator Chaney said, some spouses-I wish the plural of the word 'spouse' were 'spice'; it would make so much more sense-may well not want to disclose and will, in fact, refuse to disclose to their parliamentary spouses what their assets are. We note that the Government's motion, after providing that Ministers must submit certain statements, requests us to vote today on the provision that 'the Senate is of the opinion'. That is all we are required to vote on now. The motion states that 'the Senate is of the opinion that senators' should do certain things. I note that that is optional. Senator Button made the point that the media and the public can make a judgment about a senator who chooses not to disclose various matters that are listed in the accompanying statement. I hope that the Government will prevent itself getting into the sort of mess it is bound to get into if it does not adopt the sort of suggestion that Senator Chaney made. If the Government tries to enshrine these recommendations in legislation, it will be in all sorts of trouble. At that point, as far as the Democrats are concerned, we would look very closely at what the Government puts into the legislation. For example, the motion states: That the Senate-. . . . is of the opinion that all Senators should provide similar statements- to Ministers- of their private interests, including those of their families of which they are aware . . . What is a family? That is a fair question. In the Minister's speech it is defined as the spouse and dependent children. One deduces from that that non- dependent children are not members of the family. What sort of a gaping hole is that for someone, a member of parliament or a senator, bent on mischief to divest some of his assets to a non-dependent child? Are not the assets of de factos and partners included? Obviously in the Minister's definition they are not. Surely there is an overwhelming reason for them to be included. I notice that liabilities are about to be disclosed, but it does not say whether that means amounts. What is the point of asking that liabilities be declared if no amounts are given, as Senator Chaney mentioned? Then the motion comes to the point of absurdity when it says that the nature of any other substantial sources of income must be disclosed. What does 'substantial' mean? That is not defined anywhere. Paragraph (xi) states: gifts valued at more than $250 received from official sources, or at more than $ 100 where received from other than official sources . . . That is a cute one. I assume that means that when members of parliament go visiting overseas, either as leaders or members of a delegation, and are given a gift, that is an official source. I presume that is what it means. To put a value on those sorts of things again brings this matter to a point of absurdity. Strictly speaking gifts of more than $100 from other than official sources include birthday presents from one's wife and children or other family members. Also to be disclosed is: any sponsored travel or hospitality received . . . What does 'hospitality received' mean? On the occasions that I visit overseas I stay with friends. Do I ask them what they value their accommodation to be? I understand that several parliamentary delegations are leaving for overseas this week or next week. When all of those members and senators return will they have to disclose the value of the hospitality that they have received? Paragraph (e) states in part: . . . notwithstanding the lodgment of statements by Senators and their incorporation in a public register individual Senators should declare any relevant interest if they participate in a debate in the Senate or vote in a division in the Senate . . . What about a pharmacist, for example, who is voting on a pharmaceutical benefits Bill? Senator Townley —Or a doctor. Senator CHIPP —Or a doctor voting on Medicare, and a thousand other examples? That is not spelt out. I do not need to canvass the ground that Senator Chaney did so competently. All I say is that we support the thrust of what he said, but I do take some heart from the Government's attitude. Senator Button has given his assurance that the matter will be treated reasonably and that Senator Chaney 's comments will be taken into consideration. The motion states that this matter will be referred to the Standing Orders Committee for it to consider and report upon what changes to the Standing Orders may be required to give effect to the matters contained in the paragraphs of this motion. I would not like to be a member of the Standing Orders Committee charged with this job. One would hope that when this matter does go to the Committee, as the motion will be passed this afternoon, members of that Committee would look at the questions that Senator Chaney and I have raised this afternoon to make sure that the thrust of what the Government is doing, which is commendable, makes some sense and does not lapse into absurdity. Therefore the Democrats hope that the Government does pay some attention to what has been said this afternoon. Amendment negatived. Question resolved in the affirmative. [COGNATE BILL: APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 2) 1983-84] Debate resumed. Senator TOWNLEY(Tasmania)(6.25) —Before the suspension of the sitting for lunch I was talking about some of the dangers of acid rain. Some of the areas that are effected by it get rain as acidic as vinegar. In Los Angeles acid fogs with a pH level of up to 2.2 have been recorded. The honourable senators who have any knowledge of a pH scale will realise that a pH of 2.2 is becoming very acidic indeed. I certainly would not like that kind of acidity on my skin or in my eyes or lungs for too long. Of course acid rain does not always come down just where the coal-fired station is. It can be dumped downwind many kilometres away. I would not like to live downwind from a coal-fired station. Some people may have heard of the arguments that are going on between the United States and Canada about this matter, and in Europe too, with so many millions of people and so many oil and coal-fired stations and very large populations in small areas. It is not always possible to tell just who is responsible for any acid rain that may fall in a particular area, so we have tension between nations, both in Europe and in the Americas, and not a lot can be done to reduce this problem. Scrubbers can be installed in the stacks to try to get rid of the sulphur emissions from coal burning, but they do not remove all of it and they are very expensive to operate. In fact the cost of acid rain limiting-that does not mean it is got rid of, it is just limited-in the mid- western and eastern United States power utilities would cost somewhere between $ US3,000m and $US7,000m. Of course that would be a cost that would have to be passed on to the consumers. Even in Australia, with our small population and low densities of industry, the effects of acid rain are becoming known. For Australia, most probably the main danger of burning a lot of coal is the increase in temperature that may result over the long term from that burning of fossil fuels. An article in the Australian today was headed: ' ''Dire consequences'' in global warm-up'. A report was given to the United States Environmental Protection Agency that tells just what kinds of dangers are likely in this world if we continue burning fossil fuels at the expected rate. We need only a small increase in temperature in this world to melt gradually the ice caps in Antarctica. If they were to melt totally, the level of water in the oceans would rise by some 30 metres. Those honourable senators with any knowledge of geo- graphy would realise that that would inundate a lot of very important areas for food growing in this world and would inundate a lot of the areas where people live. The greenhouse or warming effect is something that I believe that the world should be starting to worry about at this time. As well as acid rain from the coal stations there is of course the ash problem that I think Senator Jessop spoke about the other day. We all hear of coal mining accidents that occur from time to time. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a short list of accidents involving working days lost, prepared for me by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Library. Leave granted. The list read as follows- ACCIDENTS INVOLVING WORKING DAYS LOST: AUSTRALIA AND OVERSEAS (accidents per 1,000 employees) Industry Manu- Total Country Agriculture Mining facturing Construction Finance workforce UK (a) 20.7 171.6 29.3 34.1 10.3 21.5 USA (b) 9.3 74.5 53.6 41.6 28.6 28.5 (a) 1980. (b) 1979. The equivalent figure for the New South Wales Coal Industry is 466 per 1,000 employees in 1981-82. Note: Caution should be exercised in interpreting these figures as the minimum number of days of work resulting from an accident required for that accident to be counted in these statistics varies with each country. Compiled at request by the Statistics Group of the Legislative Research Service from information supplied by the Joint Coal Board and from International Labour Office publications. Senator TOWNLEY —I have mentioned just a few of the drawbacks of coal fired stations. I think I should mention also that, although Australia is blessed with great quantities of coal, even those supplies will not last forever, and we should move towards preserving that coal for other purposes. I believe that Australia should be moving into nuclear technology. We should be educating youngsters in our schools that atomic power is an engineering problem and that as time goes on the problems will become fewer and fewer. We should be expanding the physics and engineering schools in the universities of this country so that we can build safe and efficient atomic power stations of the highest standard that has been determined as satisfactory. We should be educating the lay people that atomic power stations are not controlled explosions, that the fuel that is used is nowhere near the weapons grade and that weapons cannot be easily and cheaply made from power-station by-products. Senator Jessop on 7 September, incorporated a document that went into that matter. I draw that document to the attention of anybody who is interested in this so-called problem of proliferation. Anyone wanting to build atomic weapons would build a special facility, not just try to obtain the ingredients from a power-station, as some anti-uranium people tried to imply. I believe that it is time that we let some of the private enterprise companies of this country decide whether it is economically feasible to develop a uranium mine. I think there is too much government interference in that kind of area. Mining is not the mere pursuit of profit. It is not a sacred right of those who would dig up minerals. Its purpose is to produce resources which are of vital need to the world-wide community of mankind. Many eminent people have agreed that nuclear power is a necessary and irreplaceable source of future energy for mankind in both the short and the long term. Australia, with some 17 per cent of the world's low cost and easily mined uranium, is in a favourable position to supply this uranium for commercial power. It would therefore also be in a position to influence the correct use and development of the stations and play a part in the future international co-operation for nuclear waste disposal. That is a matter which I should like to deal with at some other time. It is simple logic that as long as nuclear energy remains the only low cost alternative to using our fossil fuels, which are being rapidly exhausted, with the inherent dangers that I have mentioned, we should pursue the opportunities which are offered to this country by its luck in having so much uranium. Some people would be saying, I suppose, that we should be using the wind, that we should be using tidal, solar, or some other kind of power. Some of these things could produce some power but it is not cheap and it is not proven. None of them satisfy or could satisfy the requirement in this world for massive quantities of low cost power. Atomic power has been proven to be the lowest cost, cleanest and best type of power for big quantities, and none of the other sources could possibly go close to supplying the power that would be needed. Sir Barton Pope, on page 7 of the book 'Challenge to Australia' says: With the notable exception of water and petroleum which must cause concern, Australia is more potentially rich on average than others on mineral resources, particularly for energy related fuel. Australia, or any other country, must not anticipate selfishly withholding its resources from desperate and needy nations. The world must become closer knit and interdependent. Compassion must displace selfishness. On page 13 he says: Nuclear energy has got right out of perspective and understandably is clouded with emotionalism with its initial application to war. Science and the world nuclear industry must stand rebuked for remaining so remote from the community at large who have unfairly been left uninformed and vulnerable to misinterpretation. A little further on he says: Our very survival may well depend on the use of nuclear power for civilian use. The world in the next century will become acutely aware of the great debt to nuclear science and will pay tribute to its creators. Towards the bottom of that page he says: A Nobel Prize would be totally inadequate recognition for the scientist and those millions so spared would owe a great debt of gratitude to the opponents of nuclear for civilian use who, when better informed, had the courage to reverse their expressed opposition and emotionalism of today. I should like to remind the Senate of what Sir Mark Oliphant said in the same book. At page 32 he said: . . . it is impossible to put the clock back, to wipe out the nuclear knowledge which made the weapons possible, or to forgo the peaceful uses of nuclear energy in a world where fossil fuels, especially oil and gas, are being depleted rapidly. On page 34 he said: Withholding Australian uranium would not prevent the erection of a single reactor, or the production of one nuclear weapon, in a world where 50,000-60,000 such weapons already exist. He also said: As one who has been involved all my life in nuclear physics and nuclear energy, who has participated in many international discussions with soviet and other workers in these fields, and in scientific and technical aid to developing nations, who is committed to the search for peace, I am convinced that Australia would be foolish not to mine, use, and sell uranium. Nuclear power stations are now far less polluting, and are safer, than coal-burning equivalents. I think I would have to agree with the headline which appeared in the Australian on 13 October, which stated 'There is no alternative to nuclear power'. That was on an article by Des Keagan, an article which I suggest it might be of value for those people who have doubts about uranium to read. Finally I should like to quote from an article Leslie Kemeny which appears on page 13 of the Mining Review of August/September 1983 in which it is said: The future of the eight billion inhabitants of planet Earth around the year 2020 will be vitally influenced by our recognition of the above facts today. Uranium is not a tool of political gamesmanship. It is the only viable option for the maintenance of the increasing energy needs of mankind for at least the next five decades. I have tried to cover a few of the points that relate to atomic energy today. There are many others that I should like to go into as time goes on, because it will be a continuing debate and one that should be kept before the people of this country until it gradually sinks through that those who are opposed to the use of uranium for peaceful purposes are a very vocal minority. I believe that they are a dangerous minority because, as I said at the beginning of this speech , Australia is a country that is very much in debt. If we allow these people who would stop our exports of, say, uranium, coal and iron ore, by shipping strikes- Australia has got a terrible record in this area-countries will get those materials alsewhere, and our standing within financial circles will become very bad. We might reach the situation where people will worry about whether we will be able to pay our bills, just as we in this country worry about whether some of the countries in South America can pay their bills. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(6.40) —There can be no doubt that the Budget for 1983- 84 must have been very difficult to frame. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) in his speech on the Budget said it: . . . . may have been the most difficult to frame in the last 10 years. I certainly would not dispute that. 'The economy sank deep into recession in 1982-83'. That sentence is a quotation from Budget Statement No. 2 headed 'The Budget and the Economy'. An overview of the economy is given in that statement. I seek leave to incorporate that statement in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows- STATEMENT No. 2-THE BUDGET AND THE ECONOMY Overview The economy sank deep into recession in 1982-83 as the forces instrumental in bringing the earlier expansion to a halt-principally large increases in domestic costs, international recession and high domestic and overseas interest rates- exerted a continuing influence, and as widespread drought took its toll. Private investment fell sharply and private consumption spending weakened. In response, imports fell and stocks were reduced markedly. Fiscal policy became much more stimulative but the impact of this was not felt until the second half of the fiscal year. As business responded to high labour costs, a slump in profitability and weakening demand, employment contracted sharply and unemployment spiralled to rates not experienced since the 1930s. Finance was readily available over most of the year as reflected in the relatively high growth of most of the financial aggregates. Despite falls in overseas interest rates and the depth of the domestic recession, domestic interest rates remained relatively high under the influence of continuing inflation and large and rapidly increasing public sector borrowings. Wage increases slowed as the labour market deteriorated and the 'wages pause' took effect in the second half of the year. Inflation continued at a high rate and by the second half of the year was more than double the average of our major OECD trading partners. Increased productivity and a slowing in wages growth brought only a partial unwinding of past increases in real unit labour costs and business profitability and cash flow continued to be depressed. Reflecting these pressures the value of the Australian dollar declined substantially over the year. A continuing application of fiscal stimulus, the breaking of the drought, inventory cycle effects and a strengthening in the economies of some of our major trading partners indicate an improved outlook for domestic economic activity during 1983-84. However, with uncertainties regarding the durability of the pick-up and the level of labour costs still contraining employers' reactions , and with the labour force continuing to grow, some further rise in unemployment during the year can be expected. The task ahead is to ensure that the pick-up in domestic economic activity in prospect for 1983-84 is sustained and transformed into lasting recovery. For that to occur it will be essential that the cost and price moderation which began in 1982-83 should continue and be supported by appropriate, and consistently applied, economic policies. Senator LEWIS —I thank the Senate. I draw attention to the first paragraph of that overview in which very briefly the forces bringing about that recession are listed. They include large increases in domestic costs, international recession, high domestic and overseas interest rates and a widespread drought. In effect, what that document is saying is that wages increased but number of hours worked decreased so that the cost of producing goods increased enormously in Australia. At the same time as this country was involved in the world recession, high interest rates continued. The result was the deep recession which has caused us so much concern. The second paragraph of that overview states: Fiscal policy became much more stimulative but the impact of this was not felt until the second half of the fiscal year. The point I want to make to the Senate is that it is clear that the Government did what any driver who was driving his vehicle up a steep hill would do, that is, to change to a lower gear. There has been much criticism of the former Government for its Budget overrun, but it is clear that the reason for that Budget overrun is set out in that statement. Fiscal policy had to become much more stimulative in order to try to resolve the difficulties which this economy was facing. So, the Government changed gear. Budget Statement No. 2 states further: A continuing application of fiscal stimulus, the breaking of the drought, inventory cycle effects and a strengthening in the economies of some of our major trading partners indicate an improved outlook for domestic economic activity during 1983-84. We are looking at a better situation during 1983-84. Of course, in the last paragraph of that overview the Treasury put the situation very firmly: The task ahead is to ensure that the pick-up in domestic economic activity in prospect for 1983-84 is sustained and transformed into lasting recovery. For that to occur it will be essential that the cost and price moderation which began in 1982-83 should continue and be supported by appropriate, and consistently applied, economic policies. That, of course, has been a major concern of many of us in this chamber and in the other place. We have raised with the Government the question of its supporting a 4.2 per cent increase in wages which must flow into other costs. As I and others have pointed out previously, it will probably result in employers paying 30 per cent or 40 per cent more than the wage increase in trying to meet that bill plus all the extras that go with it. Yet it will result in an insignificant sum being received by the employee. I recognise the merit of what the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) said on previous occasions when he said that we do live in a real world and there must be, on the part of government, some recognition of the demands of employees. Nevertheless, I suggest to Senator Walsh and to the Government that if they had tried they could have persuaded not only the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission but also workers around Australia to accept, for the sake of their unemployed colleagues in particular and for the sake of the economy, a lower increase in their wages at this stage. Perhaps the Government may even have succeeded in deferring the increase until the end of this year. It may very well have been that the Government could have persuaded them that indexation was not essential at this time. However, that is the economic situation which the Government has obtained for itself. The Government is clearly responsible for this increase in wages. The Government will have to carry the burden of that responsibility. I wish it success because, like all people around Australia, I would like to see the economy of this nation improve. I wish to lay to rest once and for all the allegations and, in fact, misinformed statements about the Budget deficit of $9.6 billion. It strikes me as almost unbelievable that we have honourable senators like Senator Jones and one other Australian Labor Party senator saying in the Senate that the Budget deficit last year was $9.6 billion. They clearly believe that the Budget deficit for 1982-83 was $9.6 billion. I wish that Senator Walsh and other Ministers in the Government who know what last year's Budget deficit was would bring these fellows to heel and tell them to start talking sense. The Budget deficit last year was $4.473 billion. That figure is set out throughout the Budget Papers. If honourable senators opposite were only to apply their minds to the Budget Papers they could see that quite clearly. Just so that they do know for certain that what I am saying is true, I now seek leave to incorporate in Hansard part of Budget Statement No. 5 headed 'Budget Outcome 1982-83' which sets out the main features of the 1982-83 Budget. Leave granted. The document read as follows- The main features of the 1982-83 Budget outcome were as follows: an overrun of $2799m (to $4473m) on the deficit estimated at budget time, partly attributable to lower than expected economic activity, and partly to discretionary decisions; total outlays of $48 982m, 18.5% higher than 1981-82 and 4.1% greater than the budget estimates; main contributions to the outlays overrun of $1915m over budget estimates were increased payments for unemployment benefits, natural disaster relief payments for drought, capital injections to TAA, Qantas and the Australian Shipping Commission, increased equity payment to AUSSAT, drought assistance to farmers through interest and fodder subsidies and higher public debt interest payments; total receipts were below the budget estimate by $884m or 1.9%; most major receipts categories fell below budget estimates, primarily because of a weaker labour market and a lower level of economic activity generally than was assumed at budget time. For example, gross Pay-As-You-Earn (PAYE) collections were down $261m, sales tax $139m, customs duty on imports $131m and traditional excises, $114m; there appears to have been a major, albeit unquantifiable, shortfall from the $ 615m expected to be collected as a result of increased penalty rates for late payment of taxes due in earlier years. This was an aspect of the collection shortfalls from personal income tax on assessment ($247m) and company tax ($232m ); there were also shortfalls of $175m from estimated collections under the Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Assessment Act and of $50m from the Bank Account Debit Tax, reflecting delays in implementing the 1982-83 Budget measures and also a subsequently revised (and narrower) scope to the unpaid company tax legislation; and only the crude oil and LPG levies and net receipts from government enterprises yielded significantly more than the budget estimates (by $199m and $225m respectively). A major part of the deficit overrun was attributable to the automatic response of receipts and outlays to the sharp decline in the economy. It is estimated, however, that somewhat more than $200m of the receipts shortfall and a significant proportion of the outlays overrun did not reflect automatic influences, but rather such factors as new policy decisions (including those in respect of drought and flood relief and financial assistance to Commonwealth transport authorities) and delays or subsequent changes in the implementation of Budget measures. In this sense, a substantial proportion of the deficit overrun could be regarded as reflecting the post-budget decisions of government. Senator LEWIS —I draw attention to the first paragraph which states: The main features of the 1982-83 Budget outcome were as follows: an overrun of $2799m (to $4473m) on the deficit estimated at budget time- Then it gives the explanation. It says: partly attributable to lower than expected economic activity, and partly to discretionary decisions. So it is clear, as I mentioned earlier, that as there was lower than expected economic activity, what happened was that the Government changed gear and made discretionary decisions to increase expenditure in order to try to overcome some of the horrific results of the recession that we were facing. What I have just incorporated in Hansard goes on to set out the matter clearly. I hope that some honourable senators, especially Government senators, will apply their minds to it and read the various points that are raised, particularly in the last paragraph, which says: A major part of the deficit overrun was attributable to the automatic response of receipts and outlays to the sharp decline in the economy. I know that Senator Walsh will rise shortly and attack the former Government and deliver all sorts of diatribes about its Ministers, but there is no doubt that if the Labor Party had been in Government in 1982 it would have adopted a similar course. I challenge Senator Walsh to say whether it would not have adopted a similar course and whether he does not consider that these were the sorts of things that a government faced with this sort of economic downturn would have done. Of course Labor would have done them. But the point is that the Budget deficit for last year is clearly $4.473 billion, $4.5 billion in round figures, and not the $9.6 billion which fools-that is what they are-keep talking about. Where does this figure of $9.6 billion come from? It comes from a projection of the 1982-83 expenditure into 1983-84, and it is then calculated, as a projection forward of all of that expenditure, to work out to $9.6 billion. But this new Government has now acknowledged that there are revised growth figures from the unreal levels that were used in the March deficit calculating starting point to forecast that $9.6 billion. It has now admitted that the revised growth figures have added at least $1.4 billion to revenue. So that reduces the $9.6 billion, anticipated, by $1.4 billion at least. That would bring it back to $8.2 billion. Then in addition this Government claims that it cut $1.2 billion from expenditures that it anticipated that my party would have continued during 1983- 84. If the Government was capable of reducing it by $1.2 billion, I suggest my party in government would have been capable of reducing it by $1.2 billion. Senator Archer —Probably by $3.2 billion. Senator LEWIS —As Senator Archer has said, probably by $3.2 billion-because time after time Mr Fraser and Mr Howard demonstrated their ability to reduce the Budget deficit very substantially from what was anticipated might be the result of the various demands on the Government during the Budget run-up. However, on the Labor Party's own figures, the estimate of $9.6 billion has been reduced by $2.6 billion. What the Labor Party then did was to go out and spend. On its own figures the Government has spent, under this Budget, $2.5 billion, on its own initiative. If one applies one's mind to that subject, one realises that it has spent $2.5 billion on its own initiative, having effected the savings that I have mentioned, and it has come up with a Budget deficit of $8.4 billion. So if we take off the $2.6 billion, we are at a deficit of about $6 billion. So if the Labor Party wants to attack my party and Mr Howard and Mr Fraser for what they estimated the Budget deficit for 1983-84 would have been under a Liberal- National Party government, it should be attacking us for coming out with a Budget deficit of about $6 billion. Let us be generous with a billion dollars and say $7 billion. But in any event, it would have been $1.4 billion at least, or $2.4 billion, or some such figure, less than what the Labor Party has come out with, because this Budget has budgeted for a deficit of $8.4 billion, on the Government's figures. It is the Government's Budget. It is not our Budget. All this talk about $9.6 billion is absolutely rubbish. It is rubbish whether it comes from Senator Walsh in his diatribes or from any other foolish senator who picks up such figures, starts relating them, and then, incredibly enough, wants to relate them back and say that it was last year's Budget deficit and not a projection for this year's Budget deficit. The figures will show that last year's actual Budget deficit, despite the enormous overrun-and I acknowledge that there was an enormous overrun as a result of the Government's changing gear and of the problems that the economy was facing-was only 2.8 per cent of gross domestic product. Of course, the GDP was down enormously as a result of the problems of rural income and the problems of non-rural income arising from the recession. We had the drought and other factors affecting the rural income, and we had the economic problem affecting the non-rural income, and still the Budget deficit was only 2.8 per cent of GDP; whereas this year's Budget deficit, notwithstanding the improvement in the economy, notwithstanding the massive improvement in particular in rural incomes-- Senator Walsh —It is 4.7 per cent. Senator LEWIS —Is 4.7 per cent of GDP. Let Senator Walsh deny that that is a fact. Senator Walsh —I have just confirmed it. Senator LEWIS —I am sorry, Senator. I take it back. I know that Senator Walsh, despite his diatribes, is frequently honest with his figures. Senator Walsh —I said it was 4.7 per cent before you did. Senator LEWIS —Sometimes Senator Walsh misleads the Senate fractionally, but usually, if one pins him down, one finds that he is honest with his figures. He has confirmed that the Budget deficit for this year is estimated to be 4.7 per cent of gross domestic product. Last year's actual figure was only 2.8 per cent of GDP, notwithstanding the problems that the Government faced. So, could we please hear the end of all the nonsense of criticism of last year's deficit. Let us try to make sure that 1983-84 is a successful year for this country and that 1984-85 is an even more successful year. I have already drawn attention to the enormous importance of the Government's wages policy. I wish it success because it will be of vital importance to the Budget outcome and, of course, to the resulting economy of this nation. I am concerned, as I am sure Senator Walsh is concerned, that one of the problems might very well be that, as a result of the indexation of wages, when the economy does recover wages will leap off from a higher base than perhaps that on which they would have been had they not been indexed. I turn to another matter of grave concern. Today I received a letter from the Lutheran Laymen's League of Australia Inc., which stated: Many are asking, 'How many of our parliamentarians can still be trusted?' Promises are made one day and broken the next without batting an eyelid. I would like to apply that quotation to the present Government and the promises which it made. Let us go through some of the broken promises of the Government to date, remembering that it has been in office for only a few months. The Government promised an immediate reduction in income tax for almost six million Australians. Of course, as all of us knew, it could not keep that promise! Senator Walsh knew before the last election that there was no way it could keep that promise. But he was part of an organisation which went around Australia supporting these sorts of promises. He knew that it was not possible to carry them out. He will stand up and say that it was not possible to carry out the promise to make tax reductions because of the Budget deficit figures. But he knew what the Budget deficit figures were going to be. He knew that there was an enormous overrun. he knew that the economy was in deep decline. Yet he was part of a group of people who stood before the people of Australia and said that there would be tax cuts for six million Australians. He is laughing now because he knows that that was an absolute lie and a deception of the people of Australia. Of course it was; and Senator Walsh acknowledges that. The Government also broke its promise that it would not change the tax on lump sum superannuation payments. Well, glory be! Lump sum superannuation payments gave people an opportunity to invest in this nation. I know that people such as airline pilots get enormous sums on retirement. But what do they do with their money, even if the sum involved is a quarter of a million dollars? They do not take it out and sink it in the sea or something like that. They reinvest it in this nation. The economy is all about the flow of money. These people were not damaging the economy. But this Government grabbed them in a place where it really hurt. It has destroyed superannuation. It has destroyed the opportunity for the people of this country to go forward and make savings. One of the fundamental principles of Australians under Liberal-National Party governments has always been that people save for their future. But the Australian Labor Party taxes the hell out of people's futures the first opportunity it gets on gaining office. Yet, the Government promised that there would not be such a tax. The Government promised that it would maintain the home loan interest rebate- another broken promise; that it would keep the health insurance rebate until the introduction of Medicare-another broken promise; that it would not means test the over-70s pension-another broken promise; that it would not introduce an assets test-another broken promise; that it would abolish the pharmaceutical declaration form-another broken promise; that it would increase the spouse and sole parent rebates-another broken promise; that it would maintain drought relief to help the rural recovery-another broken promise; that it would adequately compensate Tasmania over the dam-another broken promise; that it would remove sales tax on retread tyres-another broken promise; that it would reduce the price of petrol by 3c a litre-another broken promise; that it would reduce the charges for private patients in public hospitals by $60 a day-another broken promise; that there would be no more job losses in the steel industry- another broken promise; that it would maintain real funding for local government -another broken promise; that it would lift the tax threshold to $5,000 or $5, 893 for pensioners-another broken promise; and that there would be no tax on wine-another broken promise. Yesterday we debated in this Senate another 15 broken promises or dishonoured assurances to the education community of Australia. The Labor Party really has come into government and in a few short months has absolutely destroyed all faith in politicians right around the nation. How can anyone believe politicians anywhere? As the author of the letter I quoted said: 'How many of our Parliamentarians can still be trusted?' Promises are made one day and broken the next without batting an eyelid. He continued: Clearly we have reached a time when there needs to be a complete overhaul of procedures and legislation, particularly as they relate to powerful employing bodies, the industrial scene, the work-force generally, the public service, the media and our own political system. This Government has displayed a complete failure to treat the people of this nation properly and decently. Its failure to fulfil so many promises is really almost beyond description. I am staggered to think that a government could be elected with such a massive majority and then just turn around and quite wilfully disregard all of the promises it has made and treat the people of Australia as if they are fools. The fact that the Government and its leader have such an incredibly high popularity rating is, I think, beyond description. I find, as I go around the community, that people tell me what they have lost. What have they lost? They have lost their superannuation benefits. They have lost their income tax rebate on health insurance; they have lost their home deposit assistance scheme; they have lost the housing interest rebate scheme; they have lost the tax concessions on home insulation; members of the Defence Force reserves have lost their tax exemption in respect of pay; people have lost the $1,000 dividend rebate for investing in Australian companies; they have lost concessions in respect of school fees at non-government schools; they have lost because of postal and telecommunication charge increases as well as all of the State increases that have been imposed by State Labor governments around this country; they have lost because of the increased cost of petrol as a result of increased excise and the reduction of the freight equalisation scheme; and they have lost the value in their pensions as a result of the Government juggling the consumer price index. For what? If it had been for the benefit of the unemployed , if in some way this Government had formulated a Budget which might have helped to increase employment in this country, the people of Australia willingly would have lost this sum of money. Whatever the amount is. I have estimated that about $1.4 billion has been ripped off the people of Australia. The people would have willingly forgone that sum if they could have seen some reduction in the unemployment level or some proper approach towards budgeting to provide jobs in this country. Of course, what has happened is that the Government has abandoned the unemployed of this country. Senator Harradine —We still have the Sex Discrimination Bill though. Senator LEWIS —As Senator Harradine says, the Government has not abandoned the Sex Discrimination Bill, but it has abandoned the unemployed. There is nothing in this Budget for the unemployed. In fact, Mr Hawke's greatest promise was about employment. Right at the beginning of his policy speech, he said: There are tremendous issues involved in this historic election on 5 March-first and foremost, the right of all Australians to a job . . . That was what he said when he opened the election campaign for the 5 March election. He went throughout Australia saying: 'This election is about jobs, jobs, jobs'. Notwithstanding that, there is nothing in this Budget to reduce the level of unemployment around the nation and that will be verified when the figures come out in 12 months time. The people of Australia will then see that unemployment has not fallen in any way. Senator WALSH(Western Australia-Minister for Resources and Energy)(7.09) — Apparently the list of speakers in this debate has been shortened. All speakers, other than myself, on this second reading debate have now completed their speeches. I do not intend to speak for very long because the matters of detail and real substance which any honourable senator may wish to pursue can be taken up at the Committee stage of the debate. I will make a couple of comments about Senator Lewis's speech which I just heard. I thought it was quite good, incidentally, until he went on with all that nonsense about superannuation. I thought it was quite a well presented speech until then. I will take up one of the challenges that he laid down. Senator Lewis challenged me to respond to a proposition. He assembled that if Labor had been in government in 1982-83, it would have brought down the same sort of Budget as the previous Government. Senator Lewis —No, would have increased its expenditure to cope with the economic downturn. Senator WALSH —I am sorry, that was not my understanding of what was said. I will comment on the sort of Budget we would have brought down. We certainly would not have brought down the sort of Budget brought down in 1982-83, which was a Budget without any economic strategy. Its strategy was solely political; it was designed to have the previous Government re-elected in a premature election. It was replete with bribes directed at electorally sensitive groups, mostly in the tax expenditure field, and the cost of which was mostly deferred. One of the very serious problems confronting this Government in forming this year's Budget was that revenue losses of the magnitude of $1 1/2 billion were thrust into this year's accounts as a result of the heap of tax expenditure bribes offered by the previous Prime Minister in the 1982-83 Budget. This Government addressed itself to those matters. It also set in operation a number of other significant taxation reforms, the revenue gains of which will be deferred to the financial year 1984-85. When the figures are adjusted for both the bills acruing from tax expenditures approved by the previous Government in 1982-83 and the gains to revenue deferred into 1983 and 1984-85 by changes made to the tax system by this Government, it will make a difference of about $3 billion to this year's figuring. In other words, the previous Government left us with this legacy of debt, the payment of which had been deferred into the next financial year. I make a very general comment about the Budget. All Budgets, of course, entail judgments, both value judgments and economic judgments. The sorts of value judgments that are included in this Budget are the sorts of economic judgments which any Labor government would have to make. The principal consideration is the people who have suffered most from the present recession, the unemployed. So far as additional funds can be made available from government expenditure, those funds should be targeted towards the unemployed. Hence the very substantial increase in the rate of benefit to the most disadvantaged people even among the unemployed group-that is, the single unemployed and the dependants of the unemployed in general. I will not attempt to go into the economic judgments in detail. The Government, after considering all factors, made a judgment about the appropriate size of the deficit. Some argued-and in some cases presented quite respectable statistical evidence-in favour of a larger deficit than that the Government finally chose. I think the point that such serious analysysts have overlooked is what Keynes probably would have called animal spirits and what, more recently, was called business confidence. I refer to the fact that the Australian community in general and the business community in particular have been conditioned to believe over many years, throughout the seven dark years of Fraserism, that if the deficit rises necessarily inflation rises, interest rates rise and unemployment goes up. However shaky the statistical evidence in support of those assertions may be-it is at best equivocal-if such perceptions are sufficiently widely believed they are likely to become self-fulfilling. That was a matter which the Government had to consider when making its judgments. The crucial element in the Government's strategy for the restoration of sustained economic growth and a reduction in unemployment, of which this Budget is a part, is an effective prices and incomes policy. An examination of the sad economic history of the 1970s shows that those half dozen or so nations which have throughout that dark period managed to maintain low rates of unemployment, low rates of inflation and acceptable rates of economic growth are, without exception, those which have had-whether formally enshrined and recognised or not -an effective prices and incomes policy. That is the key, the foundation stone, of this Government's economic policy. I do not propose to delay the passage of the Bill any longer and suggest that the second reading vote be taken. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Motion (by Senator Walsh) agreed to: That consideration of the Bill in Committee of the Whole be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. Ministerial Statement Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General) —by leave-The purpose of this statement is formally to foreshadow and outline the major amendments to the Sex Discrimination Bill to be moved on behalf of the Government. There are 53 Government amendments to that Bill. A number of these provide drafting and grammatical improvements or are designed to clarify the effects of particular clauses of the Bill. The remainder are amendments made as a result of comments invited and received since the introduction of the Bill in June 1983. A 'Black Type' printed memorandum showing the changes proposed to be made to the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 by amendments to be moved on behalf of the Government has been prepared and provided to honourable senators, as has now a list of the text of the Government amendments and an accompanying explanatory memorandum, all three documents which I now table. I further indicate that for the convenience of honourable senators and the expedition of the debate, it is proposed-with the co-operation of the Senate officers-to prepare a consolidated list of all amendments when the amendments proposed to be moved, if any, by the Opposition, the Australian Democrats and Senator Harradine come to hand, as I hope they will very shortly, so that such a list might be able to be prepared well in advance of the Committee debate. The Government has consulted widely on the Bill, and received many useful and constructive comments on its provisions. In particular the Government has benefited from the very practical comments received from the Counsellor and Commissioners for Equal Opportunity appointed under the sex discrimination legislation of New South Wales, South Australia and Victoria. A number of organisations, including the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Parents Council, the Life Insurance Federation of Australia, the Life Insurance Council, and the Coal Industry Association, have made detailed representations on various aspects of the operation of the legislation, as have a number of individuals. The Government has, where possible, accommodated the major concerns raised by these organisations and individuals. In addition, the Government has held discussions with representatives of the Opposition and of the Australian Democrats and with Senator Harradine, and has accommodated their concerns where possible. I turn now to a brief explanation of the major amendments to be moved by the Government. Exemptions Relating to Work A number of Government amendments will be moved concerning exemptions from the provisions of the Bill relating to work. An amendment will be moved to clause 12 (3) to limit the exemption permitting discrimination on the ground of sex in relation to domestic duties in the home so that it applies only to the hiring of staff. The Government will move that a new clause be inserted into the Bill to create new exemptions permitting discrimination on the ground of sex in relation to the hiring of staff for the residential care of children and on the ground of marital status in relation to the hiring and firing of staff where the duties of the position involve the residential care of children and it is intended that the person's spouse would also be employed-for example, as house parents in children's cottages. In relation to the employment practices of educational authorities, the Government will propose a new exemption permitting discrimination on the ground of sex, marital status or pregnancy in relation to the hiring or dismissal of staff by a school established for the provision of education in accordance with the doctrines of a religion or creed if the discrimination is done in good faith in accordance with the doctrines of the particular religion or creed. The substance of the amendment proposed by the Opposition relating to exemptions for educational and child care authorities has been accepted but the Government amendments are worded differently and provide for exemptions from the specific clauses of the Bill dealing with hiring and firing, rather than providing the general exemption sought by the Opposition. The effect of this is that the Government amendments will not enable discrimination in the terms and conditions offered to staff or on which they are employed-in relation to pay, for example. Such discrimination would have been possible under the wide exemption sought by the Opposition, and it is for this reason that the Government has not accepted this aspect of the Opposition's amendment. Exemptions Relating to Education An exemption will be created permitting discrimination against students or applicants for admission as students on the grounds of marital status or pregnancy by schools established in accordance with the doctrines of religion or creed if the discrimination is done in good faith in accordance with those doctrines. This exemption is also in accordance with the Opposition amendment referred to earlier. A Government amendment will be moved in response to the report of the Senate Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills to clarify the exemption for single sex schools. The Government amendment will provide a further exemption where education at a level at which the applicant is seeking education is provided only or mainly for students of the opposite sex. This is intended to cover situations where, for example, schools are primarily single sex but operate on a co-educational basis at some level. Provision of Services The Government will move an amendment to clarify that the legislation does not cover services which by their nature can be provided only to persons of one sex- for example, certain medical services or procedures. This amendment is in response to concerns raised by Senator Harradine. Discrimination Involving Sexual Harassment The provisions relating to discrimination involving sexual harassment will be slightly modified, including by extending the coverage to the situation where the person has rejected an advance, refused a request or objected to conduct and as a result has actually been disadvantaged in relation to employment. The Government will move a number of amendments to ensure that the provisions of the Bill dealing with sexual harassment are applied throughout Australia on the same basis as the provisions of the Bill dealing with other forms of discrimination. An amendment will be moved to clarify the Government's intention that the legislation will not apply to discrimination involving sexual harassment by employees of a State. In addition, the Government has accepted some amendments proposed by the Australian Democrats. Exemption for Superannuation Schemes As presently drafted the Bill provides an exemption for two years for discrimination on the ground of sex or marital status in the terms or conditions appertaining to a superannuation or provident fund or scheme in operation at the commencement of the legislation. The Government has received a number of representations concerning these provisions, and in view of the difficulties raised and the complexity of the subject matter, has decided to move an amendment to exempt all superannuation funds or schemes, existing or future, for an unlimited time, but to provide that this exemption may be repealed by regulation. The amendment provides that such regulations are not to come into operation until 12 months after they are made and, in any event, not earlier than two years from the proclamation of the Bill. The regulations could, of course, be disallowed by either the Senate or the House of Representatives, in accordance with normal procedure. I should make it clear that the Government will not make any regulations until an inquiry into the problems raised by the life insurance and superannuation industry associations has been held and the industry's major concerns have been examined and met, where appropriate. At the same time, the Government is signalling its intention in principle that the Sex Discrimination Act should-and in due course, will-cover superannuation schemes. Sport The Government will move an amendment to limit the exemption in relation to sport by providing that persons of either sex can be excluded from any competitive sporting activity where the strength, stamina or physique of competitors is relevant. The Government is of the view that its amendment would accommodate the amendment to the clause proposed by the Australian Democrats. Clubs The Government will move amendments to provide that clubs may not discriminate in the terms and conditions of membership afforded to members or where a member in one class of membership wishes to change to another class of membership. The latter amendment was also proposed by the Australian Democrats. Inquiries and Civil Proceedings The Government will also move a number of amendments to the provisions for the holding of inquiries into complaints made under the legislation. Major amendments in this category include removal of the restriction on a complainant' s right to seek review by the Human Rights Commission of certain findings of the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, and provision to allow inquiries by the Human Rights Commission to be held in private. Other Major Amendments proposed by the Opposition I turn now to canvass briefly major Opposition amendments which the Government has not accepted. Foremost amongs these is the Opposition amendment proposing to delete from the Bill reference to, and reliance on, the external affairs power. The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women (Senator Ryan) and I have already indicated to the Opposition that this amendment is not acceptable to the Government. The Opposition proposes to oppose clause 82 of the Bill, which deals with self- incrimination. The Government is of the view that the clause as drafted contains sufficient safeguards against the use of information obtained in evidence in proceedings before a court. The Government will, however, move an amendment to the clause to make it clear that the restriction on admissibility of evidence does not apply in respect of proceedings for an offence under clause 83 of the Bill. Conclusion For over four months people have had the opportunity to familiarise themselves with the provisions of the Bill. The Government has carefully considered all comments and proposed amendments which have been put. It has accepted amendments which are in accordance with the spirit of the legislation or which appear appropriate for other reasons. It has not accepted, and will oppose, amendments which seek unreasonably wide exemptions from the legislation or which run counter to its intent. The Government again invites the Opposition to reconsider its attitude to the Bill, and to take the plunge and vote as a coalition in favour of the legislation. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania) —by leave-The Government amendments to its Sex Discrimination Bill-amendments which have been previously circulated to us and which are before us now-will not enable parliamentarians with a genuine commitment to both sex discrimination legislation and to pro-life values to vote for the Bill. Senator Tate —That is completely untrue. I have both, and I will be voting for it. Senator HARRADINE —I hope that Senator Tate will give me the opportunity to explain what I mean by that without jumping straight in in such an emotional fashion. I hope the honourable senator will give me credit for being able to prove to him that that is not so. If he feels it is not so I invite him and the Government to declare that the Bill in its amended form could not be used to widen the scope for deliberately procured abortions, and I include clause 24 in that; to undermine by unreasonable and farcical tests the rights of parents to insist that schools provide an environment conducive to the moral development of their children; to involve non-government schools in damaging litigation to the advantage of opponents of education, justice and freedom of choice-- Senator Gareth Evans —Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. It seems to me that Senator Harradine is debating the substantive issues involved in the Sex Discrimination Bill, which is inappropriate under Standing Orders, given that the Bill itself is clearly on the Notice Paper. Senator HARRADINE —What were you doing? Senator Gareth Evans —I was, by leave, making a ministerial statement describing for the convenience of honourable senators, not in order to debate substantively the issues, what the Government proposed to accept and not accept in order that the course of the debate might subsequently be clear. I suggest that Senator Harradine's comments, however heartfelt, are in fact out of order at this stage. He will have ample opportunity in debate on the Bill itself to make the points he obviously wants to make. Senator HARRADINE —On the point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President, I refer you specifically to page 3 of the statement, which, under the heading 'Provision of Services', outlines the Government's amendment and says: This amendment is in response to concerns raised by Senator Harradine. I am, in a short statement, attempting to state quite categorically that that is not so. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Sibraa) —Senator Harradine, there is no point of order. You sought leave to respond to the Attorney-General's statement. You may continue. Senator HARRADINE —Again, I invite the Government to declare that the Bill in its amended form could not be used to violate the conscientious objection rights of individuals with respect to the administration of certain programs and procedures and the provision of goods, facilities and accommodation. There is no excuse now for the Government to refuse to amend the Bill further to make sure it cannot be used for ulterior purposes. Amnesty International-Northern Territory Criminal Code- Diethylstilboestrol- Queensland Aborigines The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Sibraa) —Order! It being 7.30 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(7.30) —I take this opportunity to remind honourable senators that this week, 17 to 23 October, is Amnesty International's annual Prisoner of Conscience Week. The theme for the week in 1983 is human rights activists in prison. The October Amnesty International newsletter supplement details a number of case histories of human rights activists who have been imprisoned for non-violent human rights work. The supplement hopes that the Federal Parliament will take action to express its concern about such imprisonments for what are no more than human rights activities. I understand that many members of this Federal Parliament are very actively involved in Amnesty International. Today I joined many of my colleagues in King's Hall at the ceremony of lighting an amnesty candle. It was lit by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) at 1 p.m. A petition was signed by many members and senators who were there as representatives of all the parties in this Parliament. On Sunday, 23 October, in Adelaide I will be launching the Amnesty International fun run and breakfast. Senator Gareth Evans —Ha, ha! Senator CROWLEY —The Attorney-General may laugh. The fun run is a 7 1/2 kilometre run. It will serve to all those who come, and try to trot along, as a reminder of Amnesty International and of the need for continuing effort to urge the release of prisoners of conscience around the world. It will also serve as a reminder of how fortunate we in Australia are, that we are free to run in the sun or the rain while many languish in gaols. We can remember too that it is not only the prisoners who suffer but also their families, relatives and those people in the community who support them. In particular, I draw to the attention of honourable senators the anguish and pain of families of prisoners of conscience. The fun run will also remind us of the privilege of our freedom and of the need for constant vigilance, on behalf of human rights, of people in this world and we in Australia, that such behaviour never happens in this country. It is important that we recall from time to time there have been prisoners of conscience in Australia. Our history is not without blot. I believe it is a matter of great pride that Mr Whitlam, in one of his very first acts as Prime Minister of the Labor Government in 1972, granted amnesty or, if one likes, freedom to all those prisoners of conscience who protested at the Vietnam War, either those who had been gaoled or those who had had to go underground to avoid conscription and involvement in that war. We also need to recall Aboriginal people in this country to know that there is still much for us to be vigilant about. Aboriginal people are fearfully overrepresented in our gaols. They are fearfully represented amongst our poor and our sick. Their human rights are not sufficiently assured. I am glad to be part of this Government that is actively working to improve the rights and services for Aboriginal people in this country and, in particular, the land rights on which so much else for Aborignal people is built. Further, this Government's commitment to human rights is enshrined in its sex discrimination legislation which was recently introduced into this chamber. Again, I remind the Senate of the relative luxury of being us. We can actually devote our energies and efforts to sex discrimination legislation and rights against discrimination in employment and education, while other people in this world are denied their very basic right of free speech. I do not wish in any way to be understood to suggest that our efforts are lesser. I think it is important that we acknowledge the luxury of being Australians. Our basic freedom of speech is, on the whole, guaranteed in this country. The October supplement of the Amnesty International newsletter contains the happy news of the release of four prisoners of conscience. It is probably beyond me to pronounce their names. I seek leave to incorporate the names in Hansard. Leave granted. The names read as follows- Irena Zofia Romaszewska (Poland) Lee Chae-Oh (Republic of Korea) Javier Ruiz Vera (Chile) John Khaminwa (Kenya) Senator CROWLEY —One of those persons is a woman from Poland. As I understand the names, the other three persons are men-one from the Republic of Korea, one from Chile and one from Kenya. However, the supplement also contains accounts of many prisoners who are currently in gaol, who are currently undergoing torture and also the other shocking descriptions of people who have simply gone missing following arrest or pick-up. We have no cause for complacency. The accounts are appalling. It is very hard to realise that such horrible behaviour continues to happen and is increasing. Certainly, I find it very difficult to appreciate my brothers and sisters in this world do behave with such horror to their brothers and sisters. I wish to quote from what was said when the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded in 1977 to Amnesty. In making the award the Nobel Committee stated: The world has witnessed an increasing brutalization, and internationalization of violence, terrorism and torture. . . . Through its activity for the defence of human worth against degrading treatment, violence and torture, Amnesty International has contributed to securing the ground for freedom, for justice, and thereby also for peace in the world. The article in this supplement goes on to say: We in Amnesty International are less confident. Countless prisoners remain. Torture remains. Executions are reported daily. Now human rights run the risk of being dragged into the tangle of international power politics. The article further commented: As long as they are incarcerated- that is, the prisoners- for their beliefs we must be ready to use our freedom in defence of theirs. I think that is a line that is particularly relevant and pertinent to us in Australia. I am glad to have this opportunity to commend Amnesty International to the Senate. Senator TATE(Tasmania)(7.36) —I wish to raise very briefly in the adjournment debate the response that might be taken to the promulgation of the new Criminal Code by the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. The Code itself is a massive undertaking. In the normal course of events, one would expect that the clarification of fundamental principles and procedures of the criminal law would be welcome. It could well be that many of the provisions of the Criminal Code which was passed by that Legislative Assembly fall into the category of desirable clarifications and codifications of that law and procedure. In relation to several matters, there is cause for very real concern. For example, in relation to the onus of proof, where voluntary intoxication is involved it is no longer necessary for the Crown to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a person intended to commit a particular crime. Instead, an accused person must prove to the contrary that he or she did not intend to commit a crime. In many cases this makes it almost impossible for an accused person to succeed at trial. It is quite clear that this is just part of a bundle of provisions within the Code which try to deal with the problem of intoxication and crimes involving intoxication in the Northern Territory. It is my submission that that fundamental reversal of the golden thread of English criminal law, which says that the onus of proof rests on the prosecution to prove all elements of the crime, including criminal intent, beyond reasonable doubt, is very worrying. As well as that, in cases where an accused is found guilty of a crime involving intoxication, a court can add four years to the stated penalty for the crime. If , for example, the penalty for crime X is imprisonment for two years, if intoxication is involved the judge can award a penalty of six years. Worse than that, section 383 (3), which I will read for the bemusement of the Senate, states: If the jury finds he- that is, the accused- is not guilty by reason of intoxication and his intoxication was voluntary, the Court may order him to pay by way of fine an amount not exceeding the costs of bringing the charge, including the costs of all reasonable investigations relating thereto and the costs of the committal proceedings. The section goes on to state that in an appropriate case the court may make an order for compensation and restitution. In other words, having been acquitted and found not guilty by the jury on the grounds, amongst other things, that he was intoxicated and the intoxication was voluntary, nevertheless the accused may be required to pay the costs of the police investigation, the committal proceedings and the trial. That is the most breathtaking and audacious assault on our normal concept of what it means to be found not guilty. I would be amazed if there were a more astonishing case. In general, in other words, the Code fails to come to terms with what is a very real social problem, I understand, in the Northern Territory, and that is the incidence of alcoholism and the devastating impact which that sort of disease has on a community which is depressed and deprived. Senator Peter Baume —Would you object if I said that 'disease' implies a medical model and suggested that you use some other term? Senator TATE —I am trying to look for a model other than one which leads to a penal and criminal response. I suggest that the answer to the question of alcoholism lies in the public health area rather than in the individual disease area or in some other form of social response than the use of the criminal law. Senator Peter Baume —Social policy. Senator TATE —Social policy rather than a penal policy. There are other worrying elements which affect the Aboriginal population in particular. The right of an accused person to make an unsworn statement at trial is abolished. Honourable senators may have misgivings about unsworn statements in Sydney, Melbourne or Hobart. But it is the case, according to those involved in legal service to Aborigines, that Aborigines experience difficulties in giving evidence. There is somewhat of a readiness to agree to propositions put to them. They are vulnerable to cross-examination. Frequently if they appear before courts and are subject to normal cross-examination the outcome is a foregone conclusion. The right of an unsworn statement is said by those commonly associated with the defence of Aboriginal people in the criminal process to be something which ought to be retained with their particular vulnerability in mind. I have outlined a serious reversal of the onus of proof. I have outlined some astonishing ways in which the penal law has been used to deal ostensibly with the consequence or the very fact of intoxication. I have outlined some difficulties in the procedural areas of evidence within the court. The Northern Territory Law Society came to this conclusion. It said: The apparent and significant departures from fundamental principles of criminal law, the apparent confusion as to concepts underlying that law, certain harsh individual provisions, the retention of outmoded concepts, the refusal to recognise underlying social problems and the elimination of established procedures inherent in the code will result in a confused and unsatisfactory state of the law for the Northern Territory. It called for further debate and consideration of the Code's provisions. I am not sure whether the Administrator in signing that law or giving assent to it has reserved it for the Governor-General's pleasure, as it were, in order for the Governor-General then to have a right to disallow the law. If that is the case, then it follows that the Governor-General would act on the advice of the Executive Council. Therefore, I am asking the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) to indicate whether, in fact, the Code has been reserved for consideration by the Governor-General. If that is the case, is the Attorney- General able to indicate whether some consideration might be given to advising the Governor-General on the exercise of that power? Is he able to do so in relation to matters of substance or is his power of review of matters passed by the Legislative Assembly and assented to by the Administrator only as to, perhaps, procedures within the Legislative Assembly and the process of law making rather than second-guessing the elected representatives of the people of the Territory in relation to the substance of their laws. I can understand that there might be such a distinction and that it might be relevant to the advice which the Executive Council would commonly offer. But, in any case, I think it would be good to see a further response from the Attorney as to the merits of the Criminal Code and for him to give some indication of whether he can bring about a situation to allow for further consideration, if not going so far as to advise the Governor-General not to give his final imprimatur to the Bill, of some of the extraordinary provisions of this Code. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Attorney-General)(7.45) —I will respond briefly to the matters raised by Senators Crowley and Tate and leave to my learned colleague, Senator Grimes, the later contributions in this adjournment debate. I am sure all honourable senators, at least those of us with a sincere and genuine commitment to human rights and fundamental freedoms, would be very appreciative of Senator Crowley's contribution and the very effective and, indeed, moving terms in which she spoke tonight of the work of Amnesty International which is an organisation to which many of us in this Parliament belong and an organisation which, very properly, completely crosses party boundaries as well as many others in the international community. Accordingly, we are indebted to Senator Crowley for her contribution. As to the matters relating to the Northern Territory Criminal Code raised by Senator Tate, on the face of it there are grounds for concern by reference to human rights standards in relation to at least some provisions of the new Northern Territory Criminal Code. As I have previously publicly indicated, I am, in conjunction with my colleague, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding), having the Code thoroughly examined and analysed. Following some preliminary consideration of it here in Canberra, a senior officer of my Department went to the Northern Territory for six days. He returned yesterday. In the course of that visit he spent a lot of time discussing the terms of the Code with a variety of interested persons and organisations including, in particular, the Government, officials and key consultants responsible for its preparation. I am awaiting now the report from that officer which I expect to receive tomorrow or Monday. I will obviously make recommendations to the Government as to the further course of action, if any, in the light of my consideration of that report and its recommendations. Senator Tate asked me about the options available to the Government should it appear that there are genuine grounds for concern in relation to at least part of the Code. At this stage, one of the options that might be considered would be to refer the whole question to the Human Rights Commission for inquiry, report and advice. Other possible action, should it appear with or without such a report from the Human Rights Commission that there are grounds for concern, is for the Commonwealth to intervene in a more direct way, subject, of course, to the Territory being unwilling to reconsider such provisions as may be in question in this way. The Commonwealth has available to it the terms of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act to which Senator Tate made reference. I understand that section 9 of that Act allows the Governor-General acting, of course, on the advice of the Executive Government of the Commonwealth to disallow a Territory law or any part of a law within six months of the Territory Administrator's assent to it. That provision is not contingent upon any specific reservation for the Governor-General's assent. That is the subject of section 8 of the Act. There are some procedural complexities about the way in which the disallowance provision works. But on the face of it and from the very brisk examination I have given to it so far it appears to be a procedural option, albeit a fairly extreme one, available to the Commonwealth. It is the case, as I have said before, in this Parliament that the Commonwealth retains full constitutional powers so far as the Northern Territory is concerned and, in the context of this legislation, legislative powers. But there are practical limitations that one would apply to the use of those powers except in fairly extreme circumstances. Certainly, no decision of any kind has been made about a Commonwealth reponse to the terms of the Code despite the fact that there are some suggestions to the contrary circulating in the Northern Territory. The situation is as I have described it. I think, probably, there is little more I can usefully add at this stage although obviously this will be a matter on which I will be only too happy to report further to the Parliament when the situation becomes a little clearer. Senator HAINES(South Australia)(7.50) —I want to canvass tonight the problems associated with a drug named diethylstilboestrol. As I understand, it is a synthetic oestrogen which was first synthesised in 1938 by a husband and wife medical team at Harvard University. It was used initially to prevent miscarriages. It was used extensively in Australia between 1941 and 1971 for that purpose, although in 1952 a study in the United States indicated in fact that far from preventing miscarriages it actually appeared to induce them. Indeed anyone who looks up details of this drug, generally known as DES, will find that it was used for an extremely wide range of complaints and effects. Not only has it been used ostensibly to prevent miscarriages but also it has been used to suppress lactation, to actually induce miscarriages, which seems a rather wide sort of extreme, to relieve the symptoms of menopause, to treat acne and to treat certain types of breast cancer. This latter example again seems particularly extraordinary given that by 1971 the Food and Drug Administration in the United States of America was indicating that DES should not be prescribed any longer since it had a proven connection with certain forms of cancer. Senator Peter Baume —It would have been only a palliative for breast cancer. It would not have been curative. Senator HAINES —The honourable senator certainly would know more about that than I do. I will take his word for it if he says it is a palliative. Nevertheless, if it was indicated to induce other forms of cancer, one wonders how one can use a palliative for one form which is likely to produce another. Senator Peter Baume —It may not have been alive by the time the second formed, perhaps. Senator HAINES —That may or may not be comforting to the victim. Senator Peter Baume —I am just- Senator HAINES —Being helpful; yes, I know. I quite understand. What happened of course was that hundreds, indeed even thousands, of women in Australia-and certainly at least that many in the United States-were prescribed a drug which was not only totally ineffective for the condition it was intended to prevent but also resulted first in quite the reverse occurring and, secondly, in serious and often tragic results not only in the takers of DES but also in both their sons and their daughters-that is, the children they were carrying at the time when they were taking diethylstilboestrol. The link between DES and certain forms of cancer was, as I said, indicated in the United States by 1971. According to a pamphlet which is put out by an organisation called DES Action, a large proportion of DES daughters-that is, daughters born to women prescribed DES during pregnancy-have tissue changes of the vagina and cervix. Most of these , the pamphlet points out, are not dangerous. Nevertheless, they are tissue changes. The pamphlet states in part: It is known that DES exposure can cause structural changes to the upper genital tract (uterus, tubes and ovaries), the most common and distinctive change being a small t-shaped uterus. A small number of DES daughters, all under 32 years of age, have developed a rare form of cancer whose name I will not even bother to pronounce, although I am sure Senator Grimes, the Minister for Social Security, who is at the table, is familiar with it. I understand that the effect on sons of women who were taking DES while they were carrying those children includes a higher than normal risk of developing certain gential tract problems including cysts, undescended testes, structural abnormalities and lowered sperm counts. Indeed, according to this pamphlet, some sons may also be infertile. As far as the women who took DES were concerned, the study suggests a possible increase in breast cancer and cancer of the uterus, cervix or ovaries. DES Action has been campaigning for some time since a number of women in this country became aware of the connection between the use of the drug and genital tract abnormalities and cancer. It has had some small success in Victoria where the Victorian Health Commission has established a DES screening clinic at the Royal Women's Hospital at Carlton. This, I might add, is booked out for something like four months. At present there is a long wait for an appointment at colposcopy clinics at public hospitals and the women in this group are concerned that this is forcing people who want some sort of screening to have to go to private medical practitioners and other specialists and that this of course, is going to cost them money. They believe that there is a clear cut case both now and in the future for all screening and treatment of women who have been taking DES, and of the children to whom they have given birth after taking DES during their pregnancy, to be provided free of charge. I understand that some time ago the program Sixty Minutes ran a two-segment story on DES which indicated that the drug had been prescribed very widely throughout Australia, which somewhat contradicts a statement made by Dr Cornwall in South Australia that the drug had never been prescribed there. I am not quite sure how he can be so definite about it, but the women who belong to DES Action indicated that after the Sixty Minutes program they received hundreds of letters and calls from all over Australia, presumably including South Australia, and now see the need for co-ordinating a network of screening and information centres across the country. The letter from DES Action to me-and I presume to other senators and members- concluded in this way: In summary, we firmly believe that there is need for free screening (this needs to be every 6 months for many of those affected) and further, there is need for an effective register and monitoring of these patients. We are therefore requesting that you support our call for: 1. Free medical screening and treatment in adequately staffed and equipped centres. 2. (a) Funding of a nationwide publicity campaign to alert DES daughters, sons and mothers to the problems they may be facing and the need for specialized tests. I just point out at this stage that it is important for the daughter of a woman who was on DES while she was carrying that child to understand that she may be subjecting herself to additional risk if she takes any extra oestrogen-for instance, via the contraceptive pill. The letter continued: (b) Consultation with and funding assistance of DES Action as the resource organization representing DES affected people. 3. Legal and financial help to obtain compensation from the drug companies which manufactured and marketed DES and related drugs as a treatment for miscarriage. I want to point out here that the drug companies continued to do this despite the fact that it was contra-indicated in 1971 by the FDA in the United States. The letter continued: 4. The establishment of state and federal DES registers so the long term effects of DES can be monitored. 5. Abolition of the use of hormonal growth stimulants in animal and poultry. (It has been shown overseas that these enter the food chain; and it is thought that they may exacerbate some DES-related conditions and thus may further endanger the health of DES daughters, sons and mothers.) It concludes: We ask that you raise this matter with your colleagues . . . in Parliament . . . We would very much appreciate your support and assistance so that some positive action can be taken at the Federal level. I therefore conclude my comments by asking the Minister tonight whether he is aware of any moves by the Federal Government to assist DES victims in the ways suggested by the convenor of DES Action or in any other way, since it does appear that these women and their offspring were victims of something over which they had no control, that was marketed at first unwittingly but later apparently with the full knowledge of the problems that were involved and who definitely, it seems to me anyway, deserve some sort of assistance. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(8.00) —I speak in the adjournment debate tonight to point out what I believe to be a case of the worst type of scraping the bottom of the political barrel. Yesterday the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Wells) asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) to comment on a Courier- Mail article, which, referring to Mrs Lilja, who is the candidate for the State seat of Barron River, states: 'Aboriginals there told me of rumours that they would lose their welfare payments and have their children taken away from them if they voted for the ALP, ' she said. I point out to the Senate that that is a comment on a rumour. I really believe that there would not be too many people in Australia who would have the audacity to believe that type of statement. In an article headed 'Queensland blacks threatened', the Minister's reply was reported as follows: Political thuggery, blackmail and intimidation were being used to make Aboriginals on Queensland reserves vote for the National Party, Federal Parliament was told yesterday. The Aboriginal Affairs Minister, Mr Holding, said officials of the State Aboriginal and Islander Affairs Department were responsible. He told Mr Wells . . . that subordinates of the department's director, Mr P. Killoran, were alleged to have told Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders they could expect to have their children taken away from them, and their social security benefits withdrawn, if they voted against the National Party. I believe that to comment on a rumour and come back with that sort of attack is stretching political expediency just too far. I believe that the Minister has misused his ministerial powers and position and abused the integrity and the privileges of his office. I also believe that he has denigrated every decent public servant in Queensland. No one in his right mind would believe that anyone could make those sorts of statements, particularly decent, honest public servants. I believe that if the Minister is honest with the people, he will go out and make those statements in the open. Let us see what would happen to him. It is just a political ploy and, I believe, one of the worst kind. As I said before, it is absolutely at the bottom of the barrel and I feel that Mr Holding should be thoroughly ashamed of himself. Senator GRIMES(Tasmania-Minister for Social Security)(8.02) —I shall be dealing with the serious matter first, and it is a serious matter. The matter raised by Senator Haines related to what in fact was a tragedy, the use of diesthylstilboestrol, usually known as DES. As Senator Haines said, it is a synthetic hormone, a synthetic oestrogen, which was used in the 1950s and perhaps in the 1940s as well. I would be very surprised, although I will check on this for Senator Haines, if it were used much beyond the early 1960s in this country. It was used in the mistaken belief that it would prevent miscarriages. Senator Baume may correct me on that, but I doubt whether it was used much here after the 1960s. It was certainly used, like other hormones of this type, as a palliative or even in the belief that it would cure some forms of breast cancer. Many of the oestrogen hormones were used in this way. I am certain that the problems that Senator Haines was talking about would not have arisen out of the use of DES for this condition. I am sure that it is not used at all now. Certainly diesthylstilboestrol was used for the alleged suppression of miscarriages, although it was not effective in that regard. It has certainly been well established that this usage is linked with the occurance in the daughters of women who took the drug of, first of all, non-malignant changes in the vagina and, secondly but less commonly, the occurrence of a rare form of vaginal carcinoma in their daughters and of some serious, but not life threatening, changes in their sons. This matter has been raised in the Senate in the past. Former Senator Melzer, who was a colleague of mine, I remember on several occasions raised this matter, particularly as she was interested in the effects and as she was a supporter of DES Action. DES Action has been very active and, as a result of its activity in 1981, a project was developed in Victoria between the Victorian Government and the Royal Australian College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. As a result of that project the referral clinic that Senator Haines mentioned, at the Royal Women's Hospital in Melbourne, was set up. It produced an excellent information booklet which was made available to all Victorian medical practitioners. It is my understanding that a similar clinic now operates at King George V Memorial Hospital in Sydney and a similar booklet has been made available. Action in the other States, as I understand it, has certainly been less comprehensive, largely because I think of smaller populations and probably the less frequent use of the drug in those States. There were publications of warnings about this drug in 1972 and again in 1975 by the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee. It drew attention to the problem. There has been collaboration between this Committee and the Royal Australian College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in the identification of cases of vaginal carcinoma. I am not sure of the extent of anything else that has been done, but I will certainly seek from the Department more information than that. The National Health and Medical Research Council has also undertaken to keep the matter under review. We have two problems here. The problems in respect of DES arose initially as an issue of drug safety. It is now primarily a matter of the appropriate treatment of affected persons although, as Senator Haines said, there may be some question about the use of oestrogens aggravating the condition. Daughters of women who took DES. I will check on the medical details of that for her. The provision of treatment, of course, is a State responsiblity. Senator Haines asked, on behalf of DES Action, whether the Federal Government could take some action to support DES Action as a resource group and whether some Federal help could be made available to publicise the problem more and to ease the situation which apparently exists at the Royal Women's Hospital in Melbourne. I will seek the answers to those questions from the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett). I can certainly understand that whenever a program like the program on 60 Minutes is broadcast there would be an upsurge in interest and certainly a great number of people would believe they have been affected. I am not complaining about that at all. I certainly do not believe that ignorance is bliss in this matter. I will seek from the Minister for Health further details of what Senator Haines required. I believe that it is a very serious matter. It is one of the medical tragedies which occur and it is one of the tragedies which will always occur as long as we use drugs or treatments of any kind. That does not lessen the tragedy at all and it does not mean that we should not take very great care to make sure that we can ameliorate the problems which have arisen. As for Senator Boswell's remarks about the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Holding, scraping the bottom of the barrel in indulging in nasty political tactics in this Parliament, I really think before Senator Boswell talks like that he should go home, get a few copies of the Queensland Hansard and read some of the things that Mr Bjelke-Petersen and Mr Bjelke-Petersen's colleagues and colleagues of Senator Boswell have said in the Queensland Parliament about people such as the former Senator Neville Bonner, who was a distinguished member of the Senate, Senator Georges, and in fact ordinary citizens in the State of Queensland. Senator Colston —I got a serve occasionally. Senator GRIMES —And Senator Colston too. In fact, the comments of Queensland members of parliament were so bad that at one stage Senator Georges and Senator Bonner, as I recall it, tried to read in this place straight excerpts from the Queensland Hansard. They were not permitted to do so because of the disgusting content of the Queensland Hansard. Those words were said by the sorts of people that Senator Boswell is now trying to protect. Let us look at some facts. As it happens, in the last two days I have spoken in this building, by coincidence, to Aboriginals from north Queensland. Let us look at what may be a little more than rumour. Let us look at what sorts of things have happened in the past. The simple facts are as follows: Mr Killoran is a candidate for the seat of Cook. Mr Killoran for a long time has been the Director of the Queensland Department of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement. In that role and in that situation he is in fact notorious. It is my information -this information has been given publicly and outside the Parliament; it has been stated on the AM or PM radio program and other programs-that Mr Killoran, in the last couple of years, occasionally turned up in Cairns, the Torres Strait islands, which are in the electorate of Cook, and the northern part of Queensland until six months ago, since when he seems to turn up every couple of weeks. He then seems to travel around the place in a way that he never travelled around before, making promises and being very kind to people. Obviously he knew that he was to be the National Party candidate in that area. That, I believe, is abuse of his position as Director of the Queensland Department of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement. The second point is that Wendy Lilja, who happens to be the Australian Labor Party candidate for the seat of Barron River, sought permission to visit the Aboriginal reserve at Wujal Wujal recently. She was informed by the Department of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement that she could not visit the reserve because the local Aboriginal council did not want her to visit the reserve. She still went. When she got there she found that what she had been told by the Department of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement was a deliberate lie and that in fact she was very welcome there, as any political candidate should be. I think it is really getting a bit cheeky, to say the least, for Senator Boswell to come into this place and complain about the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding), in answering a question from Mr Wells, the honourable member for Petrie, mentioning the sorts of things that he mentioned yesterday. I think Senator Boswell must not be aware of what is going on in Queensland. He must not be aware of the complaints of the Aboriginals and Islanders in that State about the treatment they have received from the Department of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement. He must not be aware of the notoriety of Mr Killoran and his activities in that Department. To suggest that Mr Holding raised the matters that he raised yesterday in the Parliament in a cowardly or any other sinister way is nonsense. The sorts of things he said have been said publicly outside this Parliament. No one has challenged them. Senator Boswell —Do you believe that public servants would take children from their parents? Senator GRIMES —That is the last point to which I am coming. As it happens, in the last few days I have spoken here to Aboriginal people from the Townsville and Cairns area and in fact from further north because they happened to be in this town. They told me-I happen to believe them because I believe they are honest and trustworthy people-that Aboriginals in that area have been told things such as this: If they vote for the Australian Labor Party they will lose their social security benefits because the Federal Labor Party will take those benefits away from them and give them to the State Labor Government. Senator Boswell —Who told them that? Senator GRIMES —They were told that by officers of the Department of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement and Mr Killoran. That is a deliberate lie. The second thing they were told is that under the Department of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement, which, I remind honourable senators not only deals with the sorts of affairs one would expect it to look after but also looks after health, education, housing and practically every essential service that people need in the Aboriginal community on reserves in Queensland- Senator Colston —It administers them. It does not look after them. Senator GRIMES —It administers them. It does not look after them well. Those services are administered by the total Department. People from that Department also told Aboriginal people on settlements that if they voted Labor they would be in danger of losing their children because the Labor Party would want to take those children away and send them to school elsewhere. That also is a deliberate lie. It is not surprising that that should happen. It is typical of National Party tactics. I can remember the Australian Labor Party candidate for Leichhardt, a school teacher, losing an election and being refused his job back by the Queensland National Party Government in a way that no other government of this country, Labor or Liberal, would have done. That was done simply because he stood as a Labor Party candidate. I can remember the Premier of Queensland-I think it was at the last election, although it may have been at the election previous to that-telling the people of Mount Isa that if they voted Labor they would not get the funds for their water supply and they would not get the sort of treatment that they would get if they voted for the National Party. Those are the sorts of tactics the National Party uses. It is not surprising to me that there have been reports that those are the sorts of tactics the National Party is using now. Senator Boswell has the gall to get up here and suggest that Mr Holding was doing anything other than answering a question straight and answering it factually. As I say, if Senator Boswell thinks that is reaching the bottom of the barrel, he ought to take time off from reading whatever he reads now and read the Queensland Hansard for a while. He will really learn some lessons about what can be found at the bottom of the political barrel or in the gutter. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 8.17 p.m. The following papers were presented: Conciliation and Arbitration Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 217. Defence Amendment Act-Interim Determination-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 223. Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 218. Postal Services Act-By-laws 1983-Postal (Staff) (Amendment) No. 1. Protection of the Sea (Civil Liability) Act-Regulatins-Statutory Rules 1983 Nos 221 and 222. Protection of the Sea (Powers of Intervention) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1983 No. 220. Seat of Government (Administration) Act-Ordinances 1983- No. 30-Flammable Liquids (Amendment). No. 45-Crimes (Amendment) (No. 2). No. 47-Cemeteries (Amendment). No. 48-Careless Use of Fire (Amendment). No. 49-Canberra Theatre Trust (Amendment) (No. 2). No. 50-Milk Authority (Amendment) No. 51-Canberra Commercial Development Authority (Amendment). Telecommunications Act-By-laws- Telecommunications (Charging Zones and Charging Districts) Amendment No. 38. Telecommunications (Community Calls) Amendment No. 31. Telecommunications (General) Amendment No. 38. Telecommunications (Staff) Amendment No. 43. The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 274 Senator Bolkus asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, upon notice, on 24 August 1983: (1) Why didn't the Australian Government set up a safety committee before the commencement of the 12 nuclear tests carried out in Australia between 1952 and 1957 (see Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council report of January 1983 on British nuclear tests in Australia). (2) Was there ever a recommendation that an Australian safety committee be appointed before the tests; if so, why wasn't this recommendation acted on and who rejected the proposal. (3) Why did the Australian Government set up a safety committee before the fourth explosion. (4) Was it in any way due to concern about the inadequacy of safety procedures during the previous three explosions. (5) Who were the members of the Atomic Weapons Tests Safety Committee (AWTSC) and what was their 'experience appropriate to the task', as stated in the above- mentioned Report. (6) Did the AWTSC veto any of the test firing; if so, which ones and for what reasons. (7) What information, if any, was provided before each detonation on jetstreams . (8) If no information was provided on jetstreams, does this mean that fallout from these explosions more than likely was transported at very high speed over a much larger part of Australia than is indicated in official reports. (9) What reappraisal of fallout dispersal has been made by scientists taking into account modern knowledge of jetstreams. (10) Did the 80 sample collection stations set up in Australia take into account jetstream dispersal or were they based solely on the idea of lower level prevailing winds at the time of each test. (11) On how many occasions did the post-firing analyses yield results at variance with the predictions of cloud height and fallout pattern. (12) How exactly was the pre-firing meteorological information gathered and what was considered to be 'favourable conditions'. (13) Have any tests for caesium-137 and other radionuclides been carried out on drains in Adelaide and other parts of the country as the report states that it is likely some of the fallout would have undoubtedly entered drainage systems: if so, what were the results; if not, why not. Senator Ryan —The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) I am unaware of the reasons why a safety committee was not set up by the Australian Government until after the third nuclear test. However, I note that there was a substantial Australian involvement-not only for the first test but for the two that followed in 1953-in the form of meteorological and other services, scientific personnel and consultants. (2) I am unaware of any recommendations for the formation of an Australian safety committee prior to the commencement of the nuclear tests. (3) I refer the honourable senator to Chapter 7 of the report by the Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council (AIRAC) 'British nuclear tests in Australia- a review of operational safety measures and of possible after-effects' (AIRAC No . 9) which was tabled in the Senate on 1 June 1983. (4) See 3 above. (5) The Atomic Weapons Tests Safety Committee (AWTSC) had the following membership: Professor Sir L. H. Martin, Professor of Physics, University of Melbourne, Chairman (1955-57). Professor Sir E. W. Titterton, Professor of Nuclear Physics, Australian National University; Member (1955-57), Chairman (1957-73). Mr W. A. S. Butement, Chief Scientist, Department of Supply; Member (1955-57). Mr L. J. Dwyer, Director Commonwealth Bureau of Meteorology; Member (1955-60). Dr C. E. Eddy, Director, Commonwealth X-Ray and Radium Laboratory; Member (1955 -56). Dr W. J. Gibbs, Director, Commonwealth Bureau of Meteorology; Member (1960-73). Mr D. J. Stevens, Director, Commonwealth X-Ray and Radium Laboratory; Member ( 1956-73). Dr J. H. Martin, Physics Department, Cancer Institute Board, Melbourne; Member (1957-59). Mr J. R. Moroney, Scientist, Department of Supply; Member (1965-73). (6) No test in the Mosaic, Buffalo, or Antler series of 1956-57 was carried out without approval for firing from the AWTSC. (7) Before the planned firing time of each test the AWTSC was provided with all available meteorological data by the Bureau of Meteorology. (8) No. (9) Fallout data for the nuclear tests were published in full by the AWTSC. They have been reviewed and published by the National Radiation Advisory Committee and by the Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council. (10) The sample collection stations, set up in Australia, were sited so as effectively to cover the whole of Australia, with particular regard to centres of population and their food supplies. (11) See AIRAC report No. 9. (12) See AIRAC report No. 9. (13) The statement in the AIRAC report refers to an example of factors which would reduce the estimates of radiation dose; the point being that the AWTSC estimates were deliberately cautious. It should be noted that any such fallout which might have entered the stormwater drainage system of a city would have been removed from the living environment of its population. Caesium-137 and strontium-90 in the environment and food supply of Adelaide (and of the other major centres of population in Australia) were monitored for twenty years or more, commencing in 1957. The radionuclides arose virtually entirely from nuclear weapons tests conducted in the atmosphere by USA and USSR in the northern hemisphere, and by France in the southern hemisphere. Question No. 285 Senator Messner asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 24 August 1983: (1) What was the exact purpose of the Ministerial Staff Advisory Panel. (2) What were the names of the people who served on the Panel and those who provided support services to it. (3) How long was each member and support staff employed on the Panel, and how much was each member paid. (4) What was the total cost of the Panel's activities. (5) How many applicants were received by the Panel. (6) How many applicants were recommended for positions with Ministers and office holders. (7) How many ministerial positions were actually filled as a result of the work of the Panel. (8) How many Ministers and office holders retain the services of the staff recommended by the Ministerial Staff Advisory Panel. (9) Who appointed the members of the Panel. Senator Gareth Evans —The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) The Ministerial Staff Advisory Panel advised the Government on the suitability of candidates for appointment to Ministers' staff other than those engaged solely in secretarial positions (that is, below Assistant Private Secretary level), although some support positions were also considered. (2) The members of the panel were: Professor P. Wilenski (later replaced by Mrs C. Benn), Mr W. P. Butler, Mr T. Moran. Up to two officers of the Department in the normal course of their duties provided assistance to the Panel at any one time by performing clerical and stenographic functions. The officers varied from time to time, and it is not practicable to name them. In addition officers of the Department provided support services to the Panel indirectly ranging from the payment of fees to the provision of accommodation. (3) Professor P. Wilenski was employed for 4 days. A total of $902.42 was paid for his services to the Australian National University, where he was at the time employed. Mrs C. Benn was employed for 2 1/2 days and was paid $567.50. Mr W. P. Butler was employed for 42 days and was paid $9,163.88. Mr Moran was employed for a period of 14 1/2 days. The Victorian Public Service Board where he was employed at the time was paid a total of $3,233.50. In addition to the direct payments made, members of the Panel received Travel Allowances and expenses at the rates applicable to members of the Second Division of the Public Service. As indicated above up to two persons assisted the Panel at any one time. One was at the Steno-secretary, Grade 1 ($14,070-14,790) classification while the clerical assistance varied, being at the Clerk, Class 8 ($26,800-27,850) or Clerk, Class 6 levels ($22,080-23,480). (4) It is not possible to extract the exact costs for the support services provided to the Panel due to the varied and ad hoc nature of the services given. Identifiable costs are: $ Fees 13,867.30 Fares 1,879.50 Travelling allowances 1,233.65 Total 16,980.45 (5) Although the activities of the Panel have now been wound up, applications addressed to the Panel are still being received. As at 15 October 1983, 1,830 applications had been received. (6) 470. (7) 99. (8) 25. As at 15 October 1983, 93 persons who were engaged as a result of the Panel's activities were still engaged on Ministers' staffs. (9) The Prime Minister. Senator Ryan —On 25 August 1983 (Hansard, page 254) Senator Chipp asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment, without notice: (i) whether the Government would move quickly to establish a management authority in South West Tasmania and, (ii) whether the Government would gazette the Cradle Mountain-Lake St Clair and South-West national parks under the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act. The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment has provided me with further information in answer to the honourable senator's question: (i) The Government is moving as quickly as possible towards the establishment of long term management arrangements for the South West Tasmania World Heritage Area and proposals are being developed for the consideration of both the Commonwealth and Tasmanian governments. It will of course be necessary for any arrangements and the level of Commonwealth support to be agreed with the State, although it is not possible, at this stage to indicate the detailed form which the arrangements might take. Legislative requirements and the possible establishment of an authority will be considered in the proposals. I should mention, however, that on 31 August 1983 the Prime Minister offered the Tasmanian Government immediate financial assistance to be used by the Tasmanian National Parks and Wildlife Service for essential management purposes in the World Heritage Area during the period until permanent arrangements can be settled. (ii) I do not consider that further action under the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act is appropriate at this time.